Originally posted by Pasti:
MC: "...This definitions are given in my site
www.organizationlaw.com (see "Definition) and you can verify them logicaly. If they are OK, this means that the model is correct and can
be teached in schools for its practical performances."
Well, let me put it this way. You claim some axioms, you state a theorem, but you don't
give the proof. Remember geometry?
MC: "A CORRECT LOGICAL SKETCH IS APPARENT, VISIBLE, EVIDENTLY TRUE AND MUST NO TO BE SUPPLEMENTARY PROVED !"
Well, prove that it is ALWAYS correct.
Otherwise you concept leads to t. conclusion that anyone making any claim must be right.
MC:"Nothing is left to me but to demonstrate only if this model is generalizable, OK?"
You have to state the conditions under which
you claim it works, and prove that it works under those conditions. Then you might think about generalizing it.
"Do you believe in "stress" ? Yes ? But this concept haven`t a mathematical prove and to
your mind by this reason isn`t proved,
although produces certain effects !"
You are right, not all things/facts can fromulated in a mathematically rigorous
manner. But in your case they can. So what
is your point?
MC:"I repeat: I prove my theory by many observations, many experiments and by an inductive-deductive reasoning."
You are wasting your breath. Where is the
proof that your theory works for all the possible conditions? Because you claim universality, don't you?
...
You will have to be more specific, the management functions in what context?
Be my guest. [/QB]
Dear Pasti,
I think that if a theory is logically
correct, it is true and can provide valid solutions, even it isn`t mathematically formulated. You recognise: "You are right,
not all things/facts can fromulated in a mathematically rigorous manner"
If you say that my theory can be formulated
mathematically at your turn you must prove
it. I think that it is very, very difficult
having in view the extreme high level of complexity of the mathematical problem. It`s favourite level of problems solved by A. Einstein:
"I want to know how God created this world. I
am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that elementI want
to know His thoughts; the rest are details."
So, in vain you repeat: "Now work on the (mathematical m.n) proof" "Remember geometry"
"What seems to be your problem?"
Well, my problem is that I am not...Einstein!
For t. moment I will be content if scientists will accept at least that the practical value
of Universal Model of Organization is enough
to justify its teaching in schools.
In regard to the theoretical value I will try
to demonstrate by unmathematical but logical ways that The Universal Law of Organization
is true.
I maintain idea that if a theory is logical
it is true and can provide valid solutions.
The fact that a logical theory is alwais true
is a self-evident assumption. Generally, the
infinite in space and time character of logic
is a self-evident assumption that must no to
be demonstrated.
"Aristotle and Descartes would be pleased to hear Dr. William Hatcher proclaim that even
God Himself cannot defy logic.
Hatcher, who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. IN MATHEMATICS, delivered a LOGICAL PROOF for the existence
of God before an over-filled auditorium in Warren Hall last night.
(see "Does God Exist? Yes,Mathematician Says"
By Kathy Gilsinan, Spectator Staff Writer,
February 17, 2004,
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/ display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57)
If a mathematician uses the logical proof to
prove existence of a scientific solution of
a top high complexity problem as the God
existence, way this manner of problem solving
isn`t valid for me?
THE UNIVERSAL MODEL OF ORGANIZATION IS A
LOGICAL PROOF OF THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF
ORGANIZATION, I think in context.
Sorry, with all my sincere respect for you,
I think that if you defy logic, this is your problem, not mine!
P. "You will have to be more specific, the management functions in what context?"
No context. In general. As your opinion.
Thank you for your interesting replay.
Yours sincerely,
Mihaescu
September 17 2005
