Posted by
Frank Wimberly on
Apr 15, 2007; 11:25pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Can-you-guess-the-source-tp523696p523736.html
The reflexivity of the relation on the set of humans "hasSameSexAs"
doesn't depend on what anyone reports or what organs they have. It only
depends on whether their gender is what their gender is. (I changed
"sameSex" to "hasSameSexAs" for a little less ambiguity).
So, it's like it just depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
:-)
Frank
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net
-----Original Message-----
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Frank wrote:
> It seems to me that "sameSex" is reflexive on the set of all humans.
> The only thing that would falsify that would be a human who is not the
> same sex as him or her self.
>
The set of all humans is not reflexive due to ambiguity.
sameSex(x0,x1) := (hasMaleSexOrgan (x0) and hasMaleSexOrgan (x0)) xor
(hasFemaleSexOrgan (x1) and hasFemaleSexOrgan (x1))
...which is false even when x0 and x1 = x when x reports true for both
kinds of sex organs.
I wrote:
> Are their precise metrics for the features that R draws upon, or does
> the meta-analyst just have that convenience?
Frank wrote:
> On the other hand, some mathematicians might ask, "What has the world
> got to do with it?"
Other than you can get almost answer you want by fooling with the
relation definition?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org