Re: Objects and Relations

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 15 fév, 18:05, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> This so wrong it hurts my head.
>> >OK let's try this again...
>> >Does it hurt your head to admit that 2 spheres having the same
>> >location (same center) should be discerned and that such
>>
>> A sphere is the volume enclosed by the set of points a specified
>> distance or from a center point. If the distance is different, the
>> sets are obviously different, though the smaller is a subset of the
>> larger. A sphere's location can be defined by x,y,z, *and* r.
>>
>> >discernability is impossible if location XYZ is chosen as a primary
>> >key for Sphere relation.
>>
>> Oh, dear. You did incomplete analysis and left out r.
>JOG's initial premice did not assume any radius but only XYZ. I
>wanted to demonstrate that it would be sufficient. I guess if you
>were not so obsessed with nailing me down on that you might have
>imagined that I could have done it purposely.

     Oh, I am not obsessed by it, but why did you miss something so obvious? If you did it on purpose, what purpose was there besides you simply trying to score points?

>[Snipped]
>> We can discern them by considering the different radius.
>And that supposes changing the initial statement of XYZ being the key.
>> (x,y,z) does not suffice. Add radius.
>Agreed. But that changes the initial premice of discussion.

     No, it was about location. So you say that (x,y,z) does not suffice, that r needs to be added, and continue the discussion. Or, you can just try to derail the discussion.

     Unfortunately, every so often, you get into a disruptive mode.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.