Re: A statement on dbdebunk.
From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:04:01 GMT
Message-ID: <lXSFg.14832$rP1.14637_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
> It seems the only slop so far (and it's in this thread) has
> been the assumption of isomorphism. 1:1 != isomorphic.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:04:01 GMT
Message-ID: <lXSFg.14832$rP1.14637_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> 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.
Pray tell how you reached this stunning conclusion! I'm all eyes!
Regards, Frank. Received on Sun Aug 20 2006 - 08:04:01 CEST