Figure out whether Streven's criterion for limit taking is actually important

[github-actions]

Strevens specifically takes the limit taking thing to be important: why?

milestones: 2

https://github.com/ThomasFKJorna/thesis-writing/blob/ee3afda7a8941ff0bd53e0b1f5051713ac89a56a/Chapters/II. Idealizations/2. Previous work on infinite idealizations.md#L95

## Strevens

[@Strevens2007] puts forth another classification of idealizations, which characterizes idealizations more similarly to how I did in the introduction to this chapter, as deliberate falsifications of reality. Specifically, Strevens conceptualizes idealizations in terms of the operation driving their creation: Idealizations are created by setting some parameter to a non-actual value, the interesting cases being zero, infinity, or some other number.

Later, @Strevens2019a defines infinite idealization (or “asymptotic idealizations” as he calls them, we will stick with infinite here) slightly differently from Norton. Strevens defines does provide a clear definition, which is in contrast to what he calls a “simple” idealization, which "is achieved by the straightforward operation of setting some parameter or parameters in the model to non-actual values, often zero". A clear example is the air-resistance coefficient above. At first, he contrasts this straightforwardly with infinite idealizations in the Nortonian sense, as “in \[infinite\] idealization, by contrast, a fiction is introduced by taking some sort of limit”. We will take this definition to be identical to Norton's.

However, later on in the paper Strevens adds another layer to the definition, 
{/*TODO: find a good quote for Strevens adding another layer to the definition for idealizations*/}
 namely that scientists use infinite idealizations when it is simply impossible to use a simple idealization to directly set the relevant property to zero (or infinity) 
{/*TODO: Clarify the distinction between infinite and "normal" idealizations for Strevens*/}
. Additionally, he adds, “\[infinite\] idealization is an interesting proposition, then, only in those cases where a simple substitution cannot be performed, which is to say only in those cases where a veridical model for mathematical reasons falls apart or otherwise behaves badly at the limiting value.” While Strevens later argues why these interesting cases (Norton's mismatches) _do_ make sense even if they “fall apart”, we do not have to concern us with evaluating their correctness just yet. We simply need to note that Strevens makes the same distinction as Norton here. 

Then, we can define

>[!definition] **Infinite Idealization (Strevens)**
> 
> An infinite idealization is made by performing a limiting operation on a system, taking some "extrapolation" parameter (such as length, number, volume) to either zero or infinity **in order to set some other parameter to zero or infinity.** The infinite idealization is the system with the extrapolation parameter and the relevant paramenter set to either zero or infinity (dont' need to be the same). However, sometimes these systems misbehave, **which is interesting**.
_(bold to highlight differences with Norton)_

{/** TODO: Figure out whether Streven's criterion for limit taking is actually important 
    * Strevens specifically takes the limit *taking* thing to be important: why?
    * labels: II, idealizations
    * milestones: 2
    */} 


{/*Batterman also has some definition but it is rather vague.*/}