Print

Print


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0094_01C0AB0D.A767DBE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Arwin:

Didn't Kant maintain precisely the opposite? =20

Still trying to understrand Kant but can't
Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM, USA

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Arwin van Arum <[log in to unmask]>
    To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
    Date: Monday, March 12, 2001 3:52 PM
    Subject: RE: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring
   =20
   =20
    With which you only illustrate that a theoretical proof is only =
better when a practical proof is impossible.
    =20
    A.
        -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
        Van: [log in to unmask] =
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens [log in to unmask]
        Verzonden: maandag 12 maart 2001 23:39
        Aan: [log in to unmask]
        Onderwerp: Re: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring
       =20
       =20
        In a message dated 3/12/01 2:47:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20
        [log in to unmask] writes:=20
       =20
       =20
       =20
            . Usually once the practical proof has been achieved, this =
is stronger proof=20
            than theoretical proof, because to be one-hundred percent =
certain of a=20
            theoretical proof you just have to be sure that the theory =
will correctly=20
            predict any given situation that lies within its domain, and =
the least=20
            doubtful way of doing so is to test it with every possible =
situation within=20
            its domain.=20
           =20
       =20
       =20
        It seems to me a mathematician would disagree with your =
definition of proof,=20
        and I'm inclined to agree with the mathematical assumption that =
the=20
        theoretical proof is stronger, which is precisely why we learned =
to do all=20
        those geometrical proofs in high school. With a geometrical =
proof in hand=20
        that certain relationships can be found in a right angle =
triangle, one no=20
        longer needs to check every right angle triangle in the universe =
to see if it=20
        works every time.=20
       =20
        pat=20


------=_NextPart_000_0094_01C0AB0D.A767DBE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 =
Transitional//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Arwin:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Didn't Kant maintain precisely the opposite?&nbsp;=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Still trying to understrand Kant but =

can't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rick Seddon</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>McIntosh, NM, USA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original =
Message-----</B><BR><B>From:=20
    </B>Arwin van Arum &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR><B>To:=
=20
    </B><A =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>=20
    &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR>=
<B>Date:=20
    </B>Monday, March 12, 2001 3:52 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>RE: OFF TOPIC =
- Map=20
    coloring<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D361415622-12032001>With which you only illustrate that a =
theoretical=20
    proof is only better when a practical proof is=20
    impossible.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D361415622-12032001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D361415622-12032001>A.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <BLOCKQUOTE=20
    style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
        <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir =3D ltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
        size=3D2>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----<BR><B>Van:</B>=20
        [log in to unmask]
        [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<B>Namens=20
        </B>[log in to unmask]<BR><B>Verzonden:</B> maandag 12 maart 2001 =

        23:39<BR><B>Aan:</B> [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Onderwerp:</B> =
Re: OFF=20
        TOPIC - Map coloring<BR><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT=20
        face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" lang=3D0 =
size=3D3 FAMILY =3D=20
        SANSSERIF><B>In a message dated 3/12/01 2:47:08 PM Eastern =
Standard=20
        Time, <BR>[log in to unmask] writes: <BR><BR></FONT><FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
        face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY =3D =
SANSSERIF></B><BR></FONT><FONT=20
        color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY =3D =
SANSSERIF>
        <BLOCKQUOTE=20
        style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"=20
        TYPE =3D CITE>. Usually once the practical proof has been =
achieved,=20
            this is stronger proof <BR>than theoretical proof, because =
to be=20
            one-hundred percent certain of a <BR>theoretical proof you =
just have=20
            to be sure that the theory will correctly <BR>predict any =
given=20
            situation that lies within its domain, and the least =
<BR>doubtful=20
            way of doing so is to test it with every possible situation =
within=20
            <BR>its domain. </FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
lang=3D0 size=3D2=20
            FAMILY =3D SANSSERIF><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></FONT><FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
        face=3D"Arial Narrow" lang=3D0 size=3D3 FAMILY =3D =
SANSSERIF><B><BR>It seems to=20
        me a mathematician would disagree with your definition of proof, =
<BR>and=20
        I'm inclined to agree with the mathematical assumption that the=20
        <BR>theoretical proof is stronger, which is precisely why we =
learned to=20
        do all <BR>those geometrical proofs in high school. With a =
geometrical=20
        proof in hand <BR>that certain relationships can be found in a =
right=20
        angle triangle, one no <BR>longer needs to check every right =
angle=20
        triangle in the universe to see if it <BR>works every time. =
<BR><BR>pat=20
        <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></B></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0094_01C0AB0D.A767DBE0--