On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They want some kind of mixture of "sparse" and "multiply redundant" and "not > distributed". The whole point of what we wrote was that there is no > consistent interpretation of what they tried to give as their conclusion. > If you think there is, bring it out and put it side by side with what we > said. >
There is always a consistent interpretation that drops their interpretation altogether and leaves the data. I don't see their interpretation as strongly asserting anything. They are just saying the same thing in a different language you don't like or consider meaningless, but it's a question of definitions and style, not essence, as long as the audience of the paper doesn't get confused. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
