Re: A statement on dbdebunk.

From: Erwin <e.smout_at_myonline.be>
Date: 18 Aug 2006 07:25:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1155911117.150888.196300@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>

anithsen_at_gmail.com wrote:

> >
> > Fabian has already explained it in his article "Something To Call One's
> > Own" which seems to be in the zipped free archives in his site.
> > http://www.dbdebunk.com/content2001.html
> > For some of his relevant online references, see:
> > http://www.inconcept.com/JCM/May2003/Pascal.html
> > http://www.inconcept.com/JCM/October2003/Pascal.htm
>
> These might be of interest too:
> http://www.dbazine.com/ofinterest/oi-articles/pascal1
> http://www.tdan.com/sms_issue28.htm

It is precisely because I've read all or certainly most of those that I am left with the question I asked :

How can it at the same time be true that model X is formal, model Y is in some way isomorphic to model X, and yet model Y is *IN*formal, i.e. very specifically *NOT* formal ? Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 09:25:17 CDT