Spawned from a few pages into http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?p=115112

Now it is up to you to prove your assertion that he does not exist.

What utter silliness! I don't have to prove anything!

Okay, enough of me having fun at your expense. I'll go back to it again, of course. But for right now I want to make a clear point:

You do if you want to be taken seriously.

Think about the point you just made. Think long, hard, and carefully about the point you just made. It is an excruciatingly important concept! And here's something I suspect you don't often think about (based on your copious past behavior): It applies to YOU as well as to the rest of us.

Now think about what it means to "proove" something. There is, of course, the mathmatical "proof." Clean, unambiguous, and esthetic to those who understand it. But math proofs only work for math.

Tell me, my good man: what constitutes "proof?" I'm not talking about Kosov. I'm asking about the nature of logic here - I'm specifically asking about your own understanding of the concept of "proof." What is "proof" as defined by Ratch?

 

thingmaker3,

Okay, enough of me having fun at your expense. I'll go back to it again, of course. But for right now I want to make a clear point:

Don't stop now if you are having fun. So am I. Come back any time.

Think about the point you just made. Think long, hard, and carefully about the point you just made. It is an excruciatingly important concept! And here's something I suspect you don't often think about (based on your copious past behavior): It applies to YOU as well as to the rest of us.

Now think about what it means to "proove" something. There is, of course, the mathmatical "proof." Clean, unambiguous, and esthetic to those who understand it. But math proofs only work for math.

Tell me, my good man: what constitutes "proof?" I'm not talking about Kosov. I'm asking about the nature of logic here - I'm specifically asking about your own understanding of the concept of "proof." What is "proof" as defined by Ratch?

I did think about the point I just made. I did not have to think very hard about it either. Nothing much on the philosophical angle. You said that Kosow did not exist. I countered that my textbook says he did/does exist. You said that my textbook does not exist either. How silly of you to say that. I guess in my case, the "proof" is having possession of the textbook.

Ratch

 

Don't stop now if you are having fun. So am I.

That is good to know.

Kosow

I'm not talking about Kosov. I'm asking about the nature of logic here - I'm specifically asking about your own understanding of the concept of "proof." What is "proof" as defined by Ratch?

But of course you knew that:

I'm not talking about Kosov. I'm asking about the nature of logic here - I'm specifically asking about your own understanding of the concept of "proof." What is "proof" as defined by Ratch?

I'm not asking for a specific example. I am curios to know your general criteria for "proof." Which general types of activity on Planet Ratch (as opposed to Space Station Thingmaker) constitutes "proving?"

 

thingmaker3,

I'm not talking about Kosov. I'm asking about the nature of logic here - I'm specifically asking about your own understanding of the concept of "proof." What is "proof" as defined by Ratch?

I'm not asking for a specific example. I am curios to know your general criteria for "proof." Which general types of activity on Planet Ratch (as opposed to Space Station Thingmaker) constitutes "proving?"

Well, I could give you some of the many definitions found in any good dictionary. But I will try to provide a noninclusive definition that works for me.

To wit: The presentation of evidence from which a reasonable person would infer is an indication of the veracity of a statement or proposition.

I realize the above statement is not rigorous, but it is a working definition that I authored.

Ratch

 

That begs the definition of

a reasonable person

 

beenthere,

That begs the definition of
Quote:
a reasonable person

I said that the definition was not rigorous. Feel free to supply one of your own.

Ratch

 

Last time I checked, it took one or two dozen people to decide what a "reasonable person" might or might not do.

Thank you for your answer, Ratch. It satisfies much of my curiosity on this issue.

 

thingmaker3,

Last time I checked, it took one or two dozen people to decide what a "reasonable person" might or might not do.

Thank you for your answer, Ratch. It satisfies much of my curiosity on this issue.

You are welcome, thingmaker3. It might of interest to you to know that the law is familiar with that phrase, too. Sometimes they need 12 people to decide the issue. They call that group a jury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Ratch

 

It might of interest to you to know that the law is familiar with that phrase, too. Sometimes they need 12 people to decide the issue. They call that group a jury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Ratch

No kidding? I wonder if the juries and grand juries (16 to 23 people) were what I meant when I said

Last time I checked, it took one or two dozen people to decide what a "reasonable person" might or might not do.

Last time I was on a jury, we had to decide whether someone acted "in a workmanlike manner." The phrase was defined for us as "in the manner of a trained and responsible workman." We had to make up our own collective mind what "responsible" meant.

 

thingmaker3,

Last time I was on a jury,.….

You lucky dog! I was in a jury pool, but they never called me. I was looking forward to serving and delibrating with my fellow jury members, but that is not something anyone can volunteer to do.

Ratch