>Math
But the first exercise is about judging statements based on nebulous definitions, definitely unrelated to mathematics?
But the first exercise is about judging statements based on nebulous definitions, definitely unrelated to mathematics?
I do question the effectiveness (and accuracy) of this exercise, but its learning objectives I think are quite apt.
> and correctly taxonomising those propositions
The correct taxonomy for a proposition is true/false and proven/unproven.
I can not even fathom a mathematical model where distinguishing a "law" from a "fact" is meaningful.
And the idea of defining a "fact" as something empirically demonstrated is just ridiculous, I totally reject it.
Put another way, decidability is a large area of mathematical research.
What does ZF(C) have to do with decidability? Decidability is a question in any sufficiently complex system (Gödel's first theorem). And exactly this distinction is what I made for the taxonomy of propositions, you can group them into true and false and also into provable and unprovable. What would be a fact and what would be a law?
Regardless of that, in neither case the empiricism the site uses to define a fact would play any role.