I am glad you liked it the A=f(x,y) or intrinsic value =f(x,y)
>A mathematical function is a brief symbolization of a process or processes.
So far it is >an unspecified function (f). So A=f(x,y). That should be
helpful to you.
Yer catching on quickly. You should not have to rely on texts there dear
Steve regarding basics like that ...now.
The only thing that you left out is the extrinsic value which is one of the
fixed variables (x or y). AS I maintained earlier, there is a conjoint
function perhaps in the two values which may be theoretically proven through
induction. That means to assess empirically, perhaps statistically;
causality does not exhaust our notion of determinism (cf. Russell;
Aristotle), however. General proofs seldom require quantification. Is a
marriage licence proof of commitment and love? Or is are the partners
sentimental attachment to the wedding rings they wear each day? a better
standard?
Personally I have no way of knowing about this. I suspend judgement. Maybe
you can comment on the intrinsic value function of diamonds from a
sociological perspective?
As I stated earlier the function was not a space as such but a region where
x and y are fixed variables, and the independent variable was
'intrinsicality'. I can demonstrate how this might be tested with multiple
linear regression. I could easily test my hypothesis. What I maintained was
a hypothesis regarding 'intrinsic value' in a society in that the concept
was operative in such customs as the use of diamonds in wedding rings,
wearing gold, etc. This is a purely sociological or anthropological test of
hypothesis.
Russell states that it is not absurd (unjustifiable) for someone to believe
in anything that they think has reality. He says that philosophy draws the
line across the epistemic sand, however, when someone says that an object
in nature or in intersubjective experience is said to lack reality. The
person that denies reality to something in nature that is real is therefore
acting foolishly, and their thinking is absurd.
Like Sextus Empiricus stated some syllogisms are 'indemonstrable'
john
>No kidding John, if you were to check the reference I gave you for the
>definition of a function you'd see that *this* is correct, but you
>initially wrote
>
>intrinsic value=(x,y)
>
>instead the correct notation for a functional is
>
>intrinsic value=f(x,y).
>
>Mathematics is an extremely precise language and your sloppiness made your
>comment incomprehensible.
>
>Further, you defined x as a probability but provided no infomationa about
>y.
>
>Finally without providing more information about the function, f you
>comments are pretty empty. The class of all functions on [0,1]xA (x is
>from [0,1] and y is from A which has yet to be defined) is pretty damned
>broad. The only thing we know is that
>
>f(x,y) >= f(x,y') where x,y >= 0 and y'<0.
>
>Of course if y is actually a probability then A reduces to [0,1] and the
>function is undefined for y<0.
>
>That is all one can say about this function. No mention of continuity,
>convexity, smoothness, upper and lower limits, etc.
>
>
>> >> Feeling is a function (A N. Whitehead).
>> >
>> >And? I was not questioning this, but the vague and incorrect
>> mathematical
>> >notation you were using.
>>
>> No it was only incorrect in your mind. You need to study philosophy -
>> the
>> essence of logic - not formal logic only.
>
>Okay, I promise if you promise to read up on mathematical analysis.
>
>Steve
>
>
>=====
>"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a
>'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
>--Jamey Lee West
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|