[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Paper by Landauer and Bellman



JohnM,
 
Comments appreciated. I thought I had pointed out why the equational distinction was incorrect, both by referencing the intended interpretation by Rosen and by including the actual technical reasons provided by Aloisius. But, as I think about it, I can imagine it is not as clear as it might be.
 
It is doubtful that I could write it for the "profanum vulgus", as you say, without making it 10 times longer. But then again, who is going to be interested in these comments, anyway? I imagine the target audience to be somewhat familiar with Rosen and relational biology, otherwise I doubt that either the L-B paper or mine would be of any interest to them.
 
As for "at one distinct moment", this refers to a "state" in a state-based approach. That was L-B's interpretation, not mine. I only describe what they say.
 
I'll let the page sit for a few days and go back and try to re-read it anew with your comments in mind.
 
Time for my monthly vocabulary lesson: what is a "philippica"?
 
Regards,
Tim
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of John M
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:48 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Paper by Landauer and Bellman

Tim, I want to be on the outside of this, yet looked into your text just to understand the 'relational' etc, better. You know that I don't understand biology nor 'Rosenese' for that matter, and was hoping that you will shed more light in the discussion.
I would have been happy to see, why you deny an equational distinction from something that LOOKS equational in writing. Then you abide too much on explaining what LB say and think instead of punching appropriate and well selected short Rosen-quotes against their text. I trust the reader to draw his conclusion (sometimes with mistaken appreciation/gullibility <G>).
 
So I failed to find your text an efficient philippica. Maybe others with more direct information from RR texts find it better, but  I suppose 
you wrote for the profanum vulgus and not for the adepts.
I'm the average bum who sees an  
        a-f(u)*BC^yt = t(h*+ft)^-3r   (or whatever)
type _expression_ and thinks: this IS an equation. Just like I could not understand, how in a hyperset of Steve K a {x} is equal to {{{x}}} - if the {}s mean anything.
One other remark: I would not deem a comparison AT ONE DISTINCT MOMENT a time-loaded idea, since 'stagnant time' is a funny concept. In temporal systems time flows.
 
My advice: don't even read this, it comes from a ret. editor in polymer technology.
 
Cheer up
 
John M