Re: Can relvars be dissymetrically decomposed? (vadim and x insight demanded on that subject)

erk wrote:
> We seem to just have an insurmountable failure to communicate. If
> you're making points, I'm not understanding them. So I've trimmed the
> below to address things I could make sense of. If you have the same
> comments on my comments, don't bother - I don't think this can go any
> further.
It points out the issue of importance of terminology used. I believe you are using computational perspective to RM while I prefer a fundamentalist mathematical approach to RM definitions. In their own framework none of them is really wrong jus a matter of perspective. The only difference is I perfectly understand your perspective. I am sorry I could not get the point through. I have tried using several examples but it just does not get through.

> It was probably a big mistake to continue as long as I did.
It is all right. At least it is not sterile OO VS RM debate. One conclusion already reached is importance of terminology which is a good conclusion. I also pointed out some math reading throughout the thread that may clarify some issues.

> On second thought, I'm stopping now. The more I respond, the more
> convinced I am that I have no chance of understanding what you're
> saying. If anyone else does, I'd like to know, just to spot-check my
> own sanity. Any time I get down to specifics, you say "this is
> mathematical since algebra" or some such. We've reached the end of the
> trail.
Tony D has already understood most of the concepts I have explained and asked clarifications and questions I responded. The reason I invoke simple reasons such as *since algebra exists* is because I define variables according to mathematical perspective while you seem to have a pure computational perspective on it. I encourage you to do more math and you will understand better. After all RM is a direct application of math.

Nice chat ;)
> - Eric
Received on Thu Jul 20 2006 - 19:16:54 CEST