Originally posted by PalynkaWhat I meant was that if cardinality doesn't work because quality can't be quantified, then ordinality doesn't either.
Nice of you to not explain why it shouldn't work.
If the properties of reflexiveness, transitiveness and completeness exist, then it is always possible to represent ordinality through cardinality.
Originally posted by NordlysWhy not? You might not be able to objectively give a 7.7 to an artist and 5.3 to another, but you may objectively say that you prefer the first to the second one.
What I meant was that if cardinality doesn't work because quality can't be quantified, then ordinality doesn't either.
Originally posted by PalynkaI thought we'd already agreed that you can't objectively give a score to any piece of art. If the subjectivity of such a score prevails, isn't the objective use of ordinality rendered impotent?
Why not? You might not be able to objectively give a 7.7 to an artist and 5.3 to another, but you may objectively say that you prefer the first to the second one.
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't agree that is purely subjective (there are objective criteria and subjective ones) but I'm going along with it.
I thought we'd already agreed that you can't objectively give a score to any piece of art. If the subjectivity of such a score prevails, isn't the objective use of ordinality rendered impotent?
How is individual ordinality rendered impotent? You have no personal preferences?
Originally posted by PalynkaYou mean how can I not rank my preferences personally? I do, but what's the point? Unless I wish to keep a list of all the things I like in the order I like them I'm not really doing anything. The whole point about this is the quixotical nature of taking your subjective view and placing it in the public arena. I don't think anyone's disagreeing that we can make ordinal choices on a subjective plane.
I don't agree that is purely subjective (there are objective criteria and subjective ones) but I'm going along with it.
How is individual ordinality rendered impotent? You have no personal preferences?
Originally posted by StarrmanYES!!! Thank you.
Harry Potter is so overrated. This Dumbledore stuff is merely proof that Rowling feels she has to fill in the holes in her literary prowess with sensationalism.
My view exactly. What relevance to the story is D's sexuality? Rowling should keep her trap shut, now and not constantly make stuff up.
Did you hear Luna Lovegood grew up to be Wizarding Porn Star?
Originally posted by StarrmanI already answered that. Because you can plot and aggregate.
You mean how can I not rank my preferences personally? I do, but what's the point? Unless I wish to keep a list of all the things I like in the order I like them I'm not really doing anything. The whole point about this is the quixotical nature of taking your subjective view and placing it in the public arena. I don't think anyone's disagreeing that we can make ordinal choices on a subjective plane.