Re: A statement on dbdebunk.

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:06:13 GMT
Message-ID: <FmXFg.14982$rP1.6132@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:

>> Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>> 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!

>
> Huh? What "stunning conclusion"?
>
> Perhaps you did not read my previous response to Erwin? Read
> that. Then restate your question (if one remains) using more
> specific language.

My purpose was merely to highlight the mixture of unlike terms (being 1:1 and formal/informal) that stimulated Erwin's original post.

As it happens I do not support Erwin's conjecture that the dbdebunk quote is nonsensical - just that it is a poorly framed statement.

Perhaps a better term to have used would be "equivalence" as of course one would expect the logical and conceptual views to be aligned but not necessarily isomorphic.

Cheers, Frank. Received on Sun Aug 20 2006 - 06:06:13 CDT