it says that you cannot foresee what an analytic function outputs after seeing finite points,or foresee what an arbitary function outputs after seeing aleph one points
Interesting, I never thought of it as an argument in real analysis, but rather in the logic of induction, which in your terms is about predicate functions on a finite domain.
But you didn't answer my question, which wasn't "what are grue and bleen about?" but rather "where did you learn about grue and bleen?" I learned about them in a philosophy of science class, as an argument that induction is more complicated than we generally think.
Oops!I missaw it as "what did you learn from grue and bleen"
Crash course phlisophy(without the bleen,but you get the idea)
Hmm?I thought that it was called algebra or functional geometry or analytical extrapolation or stuff
I just felt that unmathy words do not explain it nicely
Oh right its a predicate function(my first thought was a function that maps phase space to phase space,and the phase space is (i dont know) has 3 dims for position 3 dims for momentum and 4 dims(i think) for general relativity magic(?) for each particle!maybe i shouldn't watch too much minuite physics?)
Okay, you win, I actually laughed out loud about this! You have to try to remember that some people aren't math nerds. Your proposed explanation requires the audience to know about both the topology of the real numbers and set theory. Whereas the original idea was just to question how we decide something is true and generalizable. Suppose we're scientists and we do a lot of observations and determine that all the emeralds we can find are grue. How do we know whether we're entitled to state "all emeralds are grue"? People's naive epistimology would say yes.
Oh right.
Oops
Oh ok
Its analogous to trying to analytically continuate bad-behaving functions
oops
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.