Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

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

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:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 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