Re: A statement on dbdebunk.

Frank Hamersley wrote:
> 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.

It seems the only slop so far (and it's in this thread) has been the assumption of isomorphism. 1:1 != isomorphic.

• Keith -- Fraud 6