🚀 go-pugleaf

msn...@mindspring.com (Michael Snider) writes:

>On 11 Jun 1997 14:28:31 GMT, wo...@berlin.snafu.de (Wolfgang Schwanke)
>wrote:

>>Daniel J Adams <daniel@fuck.off.spammers> writes:
>>
>>>I fail to get your point. There was nothing saying that there were 17
>>>trees in the forest before we learned to count but there were stil the-
>>>concept-that-we-call-17 trees in the forest.
>>
>>You just got it :)
>>Maybe it's a little more obvious when you realise that math is
>>based on _arbitrary_ axioms and definitions (do we agree on that?).
>>If they're arbitrary, they're not natural.
>>
>>The so-called "natural" numbers (who despite their name aren't)
>>just happen to be _exremely_ intuitive, so they're a bad example
>>to grasp. But how about such concepts as square roots, pi, or
>>complex numbers? All invented.

>You've confused the name with the thing.  We invented the name "pi,"
>but the relation of the circumference of a circle to its radius always
>c = r2pi.

This is getting difficult you know.
We did not only invent numbers, we also invented the concepts "circle",
"radius" and equation for that matter, of which you just cited an example.
Of course, once we have all these definitions, we can then play
"discover the laws", but the laws depend on what you defined previously.

Greetings

wolfgang

--
Elektropost: wo...@techno.de | wo...@berlin.snafu.de         |       IRC: wolfi
WeltweitesSpinnweb: | http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/ | RealLife: Wolfgang Schwanke
                  she said you're some kind of laughing stock
              because you dance to disco and you don't like rock