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 04:43:35 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 to find new assumptionS for new problemS
... or the target of a process back-engineered to find a proof using those same precise definitionS.

ProofS show how assumptionS logically fit together....the proof can determine whether the definitionS make assumptionS (original and new)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