Re: SUO: Program Semantics
Excellent, Bill!
This is just the kind of tension between opposing camps
that keeps the pressure toward achieving a "real" result.
Just see a minor comment.
> On 3/29/02 21:34, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
[large snip]
> If only 50% of the effort spent arguing on this list were directed at some
> effort(s) to build something which can be evaluated by someone without a PhD
> in philosophy or computer science, then there would be no need to worry
> about things being forced down our throats - the results would speak for
> themselves.
I agree we need results to make sensible comparisons. But as your
"50% of the effort" estimation is grossly underestimated, the results
may be a long way ahead and while we are still talking about blueprints,
unfortunately some kind of "PhD level" is needed to discuss the matter.
And we do need to discuss the blueprints!
I feel that even someone like Jon Awbrey, however *obviously* nutty (sorry Jon),
has some usefullness:
I would never had bothered to dig some fine points about FCA lattice
mangling if it were not in the hope to pin down some of his (half)nonsense,
and I feel many others on the list (caring to really read his posts) do get
some valuable insights too from time to time (thru the bulk, but then...).
Cheers.
-- Jean-Luc Delatre
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark - Professionals built the Titanic."
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29