In article <1ZudnajAj7TF09fMnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/20/2013 4:36 PM, AMeiwes wrote: > > "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message > > news:wIydnYEnbJNc-dTMnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >> > >> In the post, > >> > >> news://news.giganews.com:119/ce55c74c-8c92-44d2-8e96-86e487e1549e@y9g2000vb > >> b.googlegroups.com > >> > >> WM has made the remarks, > >> > >> "This is deplorable because mathematic > >> like no other part of "arts"depends on > >> physics." > > > > wrong => math is not art. physics depends on math. > > > > In fairness, the reference to "art" here involves the > distinction between the convocation of Masters of Arts > degrees and Masters of Science degrees in the system > of higher education. That, however, is irrelevant to > what is meant in relation to the relative logical > priority between mathematics and physics. > > > > >> "Reality is the ultimate arbiter since > >> mathematics has been abstracted from > >> reality." > > > > circular thinking since one is thinking in circles. > > > > I, personally, have no problem with circularity. > At issue, however, is the correctness of its application, > and "thinking in circles" is disqualified.