Re: A statement on dbdebunk.
From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:06:13 GMT
Message-ID: <FmXFg.14982$rP1.6132_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
> Huh? What "stunning conclusion"?
>
> Perhaps you did not read my previous response to Erwin? Read
> that. Then restate your question (if one remains) using more
> specific language.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:06:13 GMT
Message-ID: <FmXFg.14982$rP1.6132_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>> Keith H Duggar wrote: >>> 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!
>
> Huh? What "stunning conclusion"?
>
> Perhaps you did not read my previous response to Erwin? Read
> that. Then restate your question (if one remains) using more
> specific language.
My purpose was merely to highlight the mixture of unlike terms (being 1:1 and formal/informal) that stimulated Erwin's original post.
As it happens I do not support Erwin's conjecture that the dbdebunk quote is nonsensical - just that it is a poorly framed statement.
Cheers, Frank. Received on Sun Aug 20 2006 - 13:06:13 CEST