# RE: Sorting out

Sweitzer, Dennis (SWEITD01@imsusa4.imsint.com)
Thu, 11 Apr 96 15:44:00 EST

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The above responses to my proposed formula were surprising to me, in that
they were fully focused on the + operator, rather than on the terms and
their
relationship. This is the last time I will use mathematical symbols in an
attempt to express philosophical ideas! It's amazing how easily we can talk

past each other, even though we have so much in common.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In the mathematics, the '+' operator does express relationship between
terms. I guess only mathematicians get picky about the usage ;-) [and I
hope no one took offense...]

Mathematics has multiple uses: As Language (for precise communications
between, dare I say it, geeks); As Art (the pure esoteric beauty of a
result, however impractical); For Accounting (the first use, generally
snubbed by 'serious' mathematicians); and As Metaphor (as in T= M+O+U).

Paul expressed philosophy using mathematical symbols--in a metaphorical
sense. But metaphors are two way: Though used to express truth, they may
expand truth by enriching the philosophy end of the channel by the
properties of that being used.

I found it interesting to evaluate truth-evaluation in terms of mathematical
operators (some of which were developed to reflect truth-evalutation
strategies in the first place).

So, there may be uncritical people who evaluate a compound truth statement
as being the simple sum of the components--implying that any one of the
components need to be true to make the whole thing true in their mind. And
there are those who evaluate a compound truth statement as being the
multiplicative product of the subtruths--implying that all of the components
must be true in order to make the whole thing true. And there must be those
who do so by averaging truth values in some way, or some other complicated
scheme.

Oh yes. Then there is mathematics as entertainment. At least one other
person saw my tongue in my cheek!

Grace & peace,

Dennis Sweitzer