[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

new wording for eqv?

   Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 18:20:58 EDT
   From: gls@think.com
   Subject: new wording for eqv?
   To: KMP@scrc-stony-brook.arpa
   Cc: JAR@mc.lcs.mit.edu, willc%tekchips.tek.com@relay.cs.net,
	   KMP@scrc-stony-brook.arpa, rrrs-authors@mc.lcs.mit.edu

      Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
      From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>

      I observe as an aside also that your description is somewhat
      meta-circular, though perhaps not enough to worry about here. You
      effectively begin by saying that EQV? computes whether two things
      are distinct (for which i read "not the same"), and yet the
      terminology uses the word "the same" all over the place.

   Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

In making this observation, have you adequately considered the granularity of
time, multiprocessing, and the effects of quantum gravitation?  

Note also that the preceding question, along with this observation,
presupposes temporal concepts as well :-)  --Mitch