Re: computational model of transactions
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:37:41 GMT
Message-ID: <FDSAg.63277$Eh1.44696_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
Brian Selzer wrote:
> According to Webster, an axiom is (1) a maxim widely accepted on its
> intrinsic merit, (2) a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument
> or inference, or (3) an established rule or principle or a self-evident
> truth. In addition, axiomatic means self-evident.
>
> So, an axiom is an established, widely accepted, self-evident truth that is
> generally accepted as the basis for argument or inference. You're wrong: my
> premise is sound.
>
> "Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_ucantrade.com.NOTHERE> wrote in message
> news:0ld7d2lja9numea8bthgudetosgjkc1otu_at_4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:29:06 GMT, "Brian Selzer" >><brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >> >>>No, the circumstances underpinning a fact have changed, and the database >>>must be changed to reflect that. A true statement is either an axiom or >>>reflects circumstances that exist in a real or conceptual frame of >>>reference >>>that is called the universe of discourse. Axioms are always true and can >>>stand by themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be called axioms; therefore, >> >> False statement. Axioms are statements that are *assumed* to be >>true. >> >>[snipped argument based on false premise] >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Gene Wirchenko
I think GW triggered on *always* in the phrase, "Axioms are always true..." In this world, axioms are little more than things that are said to be true because someone says they're true and we sometimes encounter axioms which contradict each other. Received on Sat Aug 05 2006 - 03:37:41 CEST