Re: A statement on dbdebunk.

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:04:01 GMT
Message-ID: <lXSFg.14832$rP1.14637@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:

>> anithsen_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>> Erwin wrote:
>>>> anithsen_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 ?
>>> It looks like you gave undue importance to the usage
>>> "1:1 mapping" which he seems to merely mean
>>> "corresponding" and went on to consider two distinct
>>> levels of representation to be somehow isomorphic.
>> If so that's pretty sloppy use of the term coming from
>> someone who has never been shy to lambast others for
>> similar offenses.

>
> It seems the only slop so far (and it's in this thread) has
> been the assumption of isomorphism. 1:1 != isomorphic.

Pray tell how you reached this stunning conclusion! I'm all eyes!

Regards, Frank. Received on Sun Aug 20 2006 - 01:04:01 CDT