On 4/6/2013 11:30 PM, Charlie-Boo wrote: > On Mar 29, 4:30 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 29, 5:30 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> >> >> > > > It needs work Zuhair. You are either presenting > > > 4 different definitions that you believe to be > > > equivalent without proof or you are considering > > > 4 different alternatives. It is very confusing. > > > > Why do I prefer this definition? > > This is EXACTLY what I was just saying that you do, Zuhair. You try > to formalize something before having a clear idea as to what you are > proposing. You try to solve problems by formalizing. Problems are > solved by creative thinking. Then you make the idea crystal clear, > THEN you can formalize it. Here you are formalizing way before then, > to the point where you don't even have the answer yet - so you list 4 > possible solutions! > > This is like a child handing in his homework late, pages are torn, > parts are missing, he's scribbled on it "I don't know the answer to > this one but I think it's either A, D, E or G." > > SLOPPY!! >
Well, you may be a little harsh with your remarks here.
There is an interplay between using formal statements and clarifying unclear notions. I simply opened his post with one expectation to find something very different.
I do not know what Zuhair's background is, but the philosophers who publish mereology do not present the material with mathematical rigor or the stricture of a compiler/interpreter/assembler. Zuhair's posts reflect the kind of materials he seems to be focused on reading.
However, you have asked to see proofs where claims were made. None had been forthcoming. It would be nice to see more responsiveness along those lines.
(But, I cannot throw the first stone. I got mad about something and posted the most intractable mess you ever opened.)