99074119   
   XPost: sci.math, sci.physics.relativity   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Maciej Wo?niak  wrote:   
      
   > On 11/19/2025 11:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > > Mild Shock  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> This is almost like Peter Aczels lost Notes,   
   > >> where he describes cyclic formulas. Works astonishing   
   > >> well for cyclic Prolog terms and arrow functions,   
   > >>   
   > >> see the odd/even example. But jokes aside, check this out:   
   > >>   
   > >> Q: WHAT IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS?   
   > >> A: HIRE THE RIGHT EMPLOYEES!   
   > >>   
   > >> Q: HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU HIRED THE RIGHT ONES?   
   > >> A: YOU KNOW BECAUSE THE BUSINESS IS SUCCESSFUL.   
   > >>   
   > >> Q: SO THE KEY TO SUCCESS IS CIRCULAR REASONING?   
   > >> A: YES, BECAUSE CIRCULAR REASON-ING IS THE KEY.   
   > >> DilbertCartoonist@gmail.com   
   > >>   
   > >> Non-Well-Founded Proofs and Non-Well-Founded Research   
   > >> https://logic-mentoring-workshop.github.io/lics25/slides/lmw_Liron.pdf   
   > >   
   > > Correct. There can be no logic to postulates.   
   > > (as long as they are self consistent)   
   > > They are what they are.   
   > >   
   > > This is the key difference between physics and mathematics.   
   > > In math you can take any postulates you want,   
   > > and work out the consequences, and that's it.   
   > >   
   > > In physics you have the additional condition of 'succes'.   
   > > The consequences, suitably interpreted, must match observations.   
   > > And of course succes is the practical criterion   
   > > to judge postulates (and observations!) by.   
   > >   
   > > Or if you want it more philosophically dignified:   
   > > The postulates must serve as the basis   
   > > for a progressive research program.   
   > > (by Imre Lakatos)   
   > > And there is nothing circular   
   > > about being 'a progressive research program'.   
   > > If it goes round in circles it isn't progressive.   
   > >   
   > > And yes,   
   > > the postulates of special and general relativity pass the test.   
   > > (so far)   
   > > Euclidean geometry does not,   
   >   
   > Any brainwashed idiot can assert it doesn't.   
   > But which, precisely, of your precious   
   > experiments is violating which, precisely,   
   > Euclidean theorem?   
      
   Category error.   
   Experiments cannot violate theorems,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)