Re: SUO: Re: Thirdness
Pierre,
> Well, hello John, that's no theorem. Your having
> stated a claim in an email doesn't turn the claim
> into a theorem the next time you make the claim.
Of course not. The theorem was proved over a century
ago, but if you don't want to waste your time reading
it, I don't want to waste my time typing it.
> The examples you give (I mean the valid one, not
> the obfuscating ones) are picked out from a domain
> incorporating agents and agency. We're speaking
> domain ontology.
I think that agents such as people and computers
are of sufficient interest to be valid topics
for an SUO. But you can define the scope of
what you want to do in any way you please.
I think it's time for us to stop wasting
both our time in trying to communicate.
John