Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84  Maybe the people naming it "intrinsic value" meant the physics-definition then. (seems like the math and physics definitions of stuff is people-count-wise prevalent here.) I still do not get what you mean with "valuer". |
I love burritos from Taco Bell => I value burritos.
value =burritos; valuer=me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 The definition "An irreducible primary that is logically undeniable" does not define irreducable, nor primary, nor are those words plain English. My definition would rather be "An assumption, which does not conflict with itself", and demand that if someone takes a set of axioms to be true:
-None of them conflict. (you mean this with logically undeniable?)
-None of them follow from each other.(which does not mean they may not depend on eachother) (irreducible to you?)
And perhaps simplicity, no fluff where not needed.(irreducible to you?) Problem with that is, that a "fluffy" axiom can possibly not be split in multiple axioms while still giving an equivalent statement. It would be an assumption to assume that you can always split axioms when they are "fluffy", one that i do not want to make at the point of defining axioms. If i would want to assume that, i would do that seperately of the definition of axioms. |
Irreducible: Function: adjective
1 : impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition <an irreducible matrix>; specifically : incapable of being factored into polynomials of lower degree with coefficients in some given field (as the rational numbers) or integral domain (as the integers) <an irreducible equation>
2 : impossible to make less or smaller <an irreducible minimum>
Primary: Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
1 : something that stands first in rank, importance, or value : FUNDAMENTAL -- usually used in plural
Does that help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 Of course that is important.(eh you think life is an important contest then  , or are you backing off on that?) As I said, we were only hypothetically exploring axioms and consequences, and not in real life. |
As I stated, bad axioms have real-life consequences. I tend to have an issue with them. Sorry to ruin your fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 I am getting the fear that you love me for replying shallowly dragging the discussion down. Are you thinking enough before posting?  Often you just quote someone else with a negative remark along. Like you did not explain with "a value implying a valuer" at all when asked. If someone disagrees, barking what he said wrong at them does not exactly helps. So please explain some things you said.  |
Apparently the sarcasm did not get through. Likely an ESL issue.
