On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 03:35:07PM +0200, Lukasz Kaiser wrote: > it has nothing to do with grounding as discussed here.
OK, clearly, I missed something. What, then, was meant by "grounding"? > I think that people normally use much more concrete models in their > heads when working and only later write proofs down in an abstract way. Sure. I do that. > This I guess is captured more formally by things like representations (think > of base-ten encoded numbers as a representation of numbers meant in > an abstract way) and there is a large theory of representations already > developed and used in mathematics. Well, sure, many theorems in a given representation might generalze to the object in general, and it can often be easier to work with the rep, instead of the abstract thing. But I'm not sure what representations have to do with "grounding", other than that, historically, one often finds the representation first, and then realizes that its a special case; although, clearly sometimes things go the other way. --linas ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=53765320-fce61b
