Re: computational model of transactions
From: Brian Selzer <brian_at_selzer-software.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:53:20 GMT
Message-ID: <AKTAg.1198$1f6.1097_at_newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
>> 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
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:53:20 GMT
Message-ID: <AKTAg.1198$1f6.1097_at_newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
> 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.
Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't intend that sense of the word; though, now that you mention it, I can see how that could be assumed. What I did intend was the sense denoting a fundamental, self-evident truth that is so obviously true that a counter-proof would be inconceivable. Received on Sat Aug 05 2006 - 04:53:20 CEST