Re: Energy as ability to do work

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

A definition does not have to be perfect to be useful. You can say, in
an elementary school, that "flowers and animals are living things" and
then proceed with "what do they have in common?", etc. Yes, there
are microorganisms, and dead flowers, etc. But this is for later.

Chuck Britton wrote:

> Then I guess I better get out of the teaching game entirely!  (NOT!)
>
> My freshman calculus course didn't finish the definition of the real
> numbers until the second semester. This axiomatization was
> interesting, but ultimately convinced me to stick with the 'reality'
> of physics as opposed to the self-consistent mindgames of math.
>
> Biology teachers can't agree on a complete/consistent definition of
> 'life' and WE will not be able to come with a (non-trivial)
> definition of energy. Kurt Godel may have offered some insight into
> this difficulty?