No Need To Prove A Definition Anyway... - an Astronomy Net Blackholes Forum Message

Blackholes Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| Blackholes I \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

No Need To Prove A Definition Anyway...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mike Pearson on December 26, 2001 04:42:08 UTC

Paul wrote:
Since I am proposing a different set of assumptions for the foundations of my proposal, it is not a matter of proving or disproving what I am proposing.

what's wrong with this?

DefinitionS are not assumptionS. DefinitionS are conventions for a communication purpose.

AssumptionS are previous proofS using that same set of definitionS... or the target of a process back-engineered to find a proof
using those same precise definitionS.

ProofS show how assumptionS logically fit together....and every definition fits in somewhere.
In other words, the proof can determine whether the definitionS make an assumptionS that work together.

Follow Ups:

AssumptionS are previous proofS - yanniru - December 26, 2001 - 18:30 UTC
- yes, not even to be dignified by a rational reply - spazcon - December 26, 2001 - 21:47 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins