|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 07:14 PM EST |
I kind of realise that. So the example is useful for that reason. Maybe a
statement resuming that situation would help guide the reader:
A definition of abstract is difficult, but, as the following example clearly
demonstrates, the subject matter analysis cannot be precluded by an explicit
algorithmic claim.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 09:23 PM EST |
It does not have physical form, ergo, it's abstract!
See? The
definition is rather simple.
Math does not have physical form =
abstract
Language does not have physical form =
abstract
Software does not have physical form = abstract
Only when
one rejects the basic definition does it then become exceedingly difficult. Not
because the definition is wrong - but because one has to suspend logic in order
to somehow paint something as being more then abstract when it truly has no
physical form.
The problem with that:
Whatever words are used to
create the illusion that the abstract has physical form can be equally used on
all forms of abstract concepts including math and language.
To somehow
"prove" that one form of abstract thought is more then just abstract yet use the
same words to prove another form is not - good luck!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|