Re: A statement on dbdebunk.
From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:20:37 GMT
Message-ID: <pVNFg.14698$rP1.3855_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
> It looks like you gave undue importance to the usage "1:1 mapping"
> which he seems to merely mean "corresponding" and went on to consider
> two distinct levels of representation to be somehow isomorphic.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:20:37 GMT
Message-ID: <pVNFg.14698$rP1.3855_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
anithsen_at_gmail.com wrote:
> Erwin wrote:
>> anithsen_at_gmail.com wrote: >> >> How can it at the same time be true that model X is formal, model Y is >> in some way isomorphic to model X, and yet model Y is *IN*formal, i.e. >> very specifically *NOT* formal ?
>
> It looks like you gave undue importance to the usage "1:1 mapping"
> which he seems to merely mean "corresponding" and went on to consider
> two distinct levels of representation to be somehow isomorphic.
If so that's pretty sloppy use of the term coming from someone who has never been shy to lambast others for similar offenses.
Cheers, Frank. Received on Sun Aug 20 2006 - 02:20:37 CEST