Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 08:25:21 +0200
Message-ID: <447a931c$0$31655$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
paul c wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>
>> ... >> >> I'ld welcome those professionals - I would like to see >> some other perspectives. Anybody seriously considering >> to contribute from outside the RM will start reading >> some recent posts and suspect that they will not be >> treated politely, though. Not very attractive. >> ...
>
>
> The thing is, saying "i've got this system that goes 'up' when i press
> this button and goes 'down' when i press that button" isn't nearly
> enough to qualify for discussion, no matter who the "professional" is.
By itself I can completely agree with this remark. Triggerred, as it is, by the phrase "contribute from outside the RM" it shows a hostile attitude towards all topics except RM.
> What was remarkable for me about the rm was that it found very precise
> parallels (maybe analogues is a better word, but metaphor is too sloppy
> a word) that allowed one to make a machine interpretation of an
> established mental system, both predictable as far as Turing, Godel et
> cetera allow.
"machine interpretation of an established mental system" is a very interesting topic. There may be very interesting observations from disciplines outside the realm of CS - even if they don't know a thing about RM. They won't get very far communicating these observations here, because everything in their posts at even the sligthest potential tension with the RM will immediately be focussed upon at the cost of the bigger picture.
> I think the people who propose alternatives need to
> establish the same connection before they start throwing new operators
> and metaphors around.
New from which perspective? Somebody who doesn't know to distinguish between SQL-dbms and RDBMS isn't necessarily busy proposing an alternative to the RM - but he will very rapidly appear to be as if he is after the "discussion" starts and his RM-ignorance is amplified.
> There remain, IMO, basic issues to do with the rm
> that haven't been completely sorted out, for example the proper place
> for rva's (eg. implementation versus interface, predicates about sets
> versus predicates about single logical variables) but these don't change
> the value of the original insight.
Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 08:25:21 CEST