Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

Chris Smith ha scritto:

> <pamelafluente_at_libero.it> wrote:
> > Further, Chris, who you think highly of, seems to have a different
> > opinion, and he is saying the counterexample works.
>
> Hi, Pamela. Please don't do that. I do believe that your counter-
> example, but let's discuss and consider everyone's viewpoints. Marshall
> is every bit as likely to be right as I am. Let's see what everyone
> thinks, and go from there. Sorry, but that kind of rhetorical device
> gets under my skin sometimes; I don't take offense if Marshall disagrees
> with me, and neither should anyone else.

Thanks Chris,

I am in no way offended. We have been battling :) some days on that. Probably, I have even kept Marshall awake the last night.

I get offended only when the discussion is not kept on a scientific level and there are replies such as "you do not understand, you are an ignorant, and so on", instead of precisely pointing out errors and going straight to the point. But in this case it seems to me that the discussion was in general very good (probably also because there are the "big minds" watching us closely).

The point is, mainly, I feel that I have finished my arguments :) Maybe tomorrow I will have some new ones.

What confuses me a little is that I thought that math is a (kind of) exact science. But here everything (proofs and definitions) seems that can be subject to opinion and I do not see resolutive statements !

-P

>
> --
> Chris Smith
Received on Tue Sep 19 2006 - 23:23:10 CEST