for spending the pixils

You are teasing again, as usual. Don't bother to deny it.
Stating by definitions:
A model, equation, or law can have "rigor" and not provide for all cases. It's not only "whether" it is rigorous or not, but "how" rigorous" and if you truly can object to that, you're not using your training or your mind.

What definition of rigor are YOU smoking
...I mean, using?

• Feynman said physicists can not predict - dolphin - February 24, 2002 - 05:12 UTC
  • and thus being no certainy, is there still logic? - spazcon - February 24, 2002 - 06:33 UTC
    • Probability is not a myth - yanniru - February 24, 2002 - 20:13 UTC
      • But ask "Why doesn't the dog bark?" - dolphin - February 25, 2002 - 08:35 UTC
        • The argument about what is already known - yanniru - February 25, 2002 - 15:06 UTC
          • c, g, and h - dolphin - February 26, 2002 - 08:22 UTC
            • Your knowledge of science - yanniru - February 26, 2002 - 14:45 UTC
              • Will explain; blunt comments welcome - dolphin - February 27, 2002 - 10:43 UTC
                • Thanks for the tolerance - yanniru - February 27, 2002 - 16:21 UTC
                  • Thanks. See new topic on Planck's constant! - dolphin - March 2, 2002 - 04:57 UTC
• Where's the beef - yanniru - February 24, 2002 - 20:18 UTC