k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2019,17:38) | This made me giggle
| Quote | 157
Kairosfocus January 17, 2019 at 8:36 am
H, do you wish to revisit the issue of complex numbers as an example of why the invented vs discovered issue is key, on a relevant core. The vector-rotation approach is a key bit of relevant evidence, brought to your attention for weeks now. The history on solving polynomials is not the whole story, and it shows how what we think we are inventing artificially may actually reflect something that has a very natural manifestation. I note that I have highlighted that our study, symbol systems, base of numerals and much more are culturally influenced so are invented, but these respond to a base of antecedent facts embedded in reality, in key, core part. That includes how we get to the Naturals and a chain up to C, thus space and spatial properties. Where all of these are abstract but real and reality-constraining entities. I suggest that the trend of your argument has not been misconstrued or misrepresented. The core disagreement seems to be that you have persistently tried to delimit Mathematics to the study, and have — while occasionally and too often vaguely admitting that there are world embedded structures and quantities — sought to define Mathematics as the discipline. I and others have pointed out the substance, which is in key part demonstrated and unanswered implying that there is no credible refutation. Once such abstracta have reality as world-embedded entities, that is enough to bring out that they are real and can be understood as standing independent of our cultural discovery, symbolism and recognition. Further, the nominalism you attempted to champion fails, as was again summarised but so far side stepped again. I can say that as for days the reason why the failure is so was explained but you stepped aside to talk about how you are not a materialist. Why the materialistic view has had to be addressed was explained and the wider problems with nominalism were pointed out. The onward conclusion unless you give cause to infer otherwise, is that you do not have an answer as to how nominalism can be expressed without resort to the abstracta it denies. KF |
| Quote | 159
Hazel January 17, 2019 at 8:56 am
kf writes, “H, do you wish to revisit the issue of complex numbers?”
No thank you, kf. |
linky |
Where's AFDave when you need him? He could have saved kf a whole lot of time by pointing out complex numbers have an imaginary part ........so they don't exist.
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
