Re: Lets get physical

Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> I may be deluding myself, but I had a little help... from Fabian. In
> >> private correspondence, he very briefly described TRM as an abstract
> >> implementation model that would lie between the logical relational
> >> model and the physical media. I don't pretend to know or understand
> >> anything about TRM.
> >
> > I think that's more or less what I remember seeing, *somewhere*. So,
> > having gaps in my theoretical knowledge but not, I hope, so many as to
> > make me feel I can't comment here and there, I think it is reasonable to
> > test what I can see in the theory vis-a-vis update effort, storage size
> > and other complexity such as whether the techniques imply garbage
> > collection and so forth, counting pointers and such. Proof in the
> > pudding and so forth.
> >
> > Since I have also admitted that it may well be that TRM's theory is
> > deeper than I can think (i.e., it may contain more novelty than I can
> > see, which I am willing to accept on faith from a source like FP)
>
> I wouldn't. Computing science is a branch of mathematics not religion.
> As such, it has nothing to do with faith. While Fabian has an annoying
> and often inconvenient habit of being right all the time, I don't accept
> anything he says just on the basis of his saying it. I suggest you not
> do so either.

FP has an uncompromising attitude towards incoherence. Given the level of incoherence you have demonstrated in your posts and attitude, what other choice would you have than *disagree* when he or anybody else would prove you wrong...

> Even if he turns out to be right, you will learn a lot more by
> navigating your own path to agreement (especially begrudging agreement)
> than by accepting what he says without critical thought.

Another proof of your incoherence...
In one thread you advocate critical thinking and the next thread you call *idiot* anybody
who disagrees with you...

> I don't think TRM is deeper than I can think, and I doubt it is deeper
> than you can think either. The problem with TRM is the only information
> available to the public are patents written in legalese intended to
> specifically mean any novel idea that anyone might ever come up with
> without divulging any information potentially useful to a competitor --
> such is the nature of patents.
>
> The people I respect, who claim to understand TRM, are bound by NDA's
> with a party either engaged in litigation or potentially engaged in
> litigation (I am not sure which.) Sadly for the rest of us, this means
> they have to keep their mouths shut. Until the legal issues are sorted
> out and people can discuss TRM openly, TRM is a total
> non-issue/non-entity to me.

Off topic again!....The point here is to clarify position of TRM as opposed to RM...
Whether you, I or even Elvis had more details about TRM is totally irrelevant...

FP and people who advocated TRM have given sufficient information for the purpose to position TRM as opposed to RM...I thrust them period and that's sufficient for the subject at hand you just can't handle solely...

Still waiting for a decent response....

> being
> > especially interested in faster, leaner and rm-faithful impl'ns, I don't
> > have much choice but to try to approach it from conventional angles and
> > hope something useful comes from that. This is my attempt to explain my
> > motivation.
> >
> > p
Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 17:10:35 CEST