Thanks for the recommendation Felix, Alan. On Mar 5 Alejandro Garcia wrote:
> Andrey this is what I mean when I say sytem B has only two states: [...] > Two questions and a comment: Q1 - the way you're reasoning about it makes directed edges seem unnecessary. Why not just use undirected edges? Q2 - if we are following wikipedia's definition of CRT's<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_reality_tree_(TOC)>, an arrow from x to y means "IF x THEN y", which is different from "IFF x THEN y" (which you seem to be using). Given wikipedia's definition, it should be possible for x = F and y = T. Hence, we can set your original node to F, and the rest of the nodes to T. No? C1 - there's a difference between "making accurate representations of observed systems" and "creating reusable but intuitive formal structures". The former asks "how do I describe and predict reality?" the latter asks "given these axioms (ie. a CPU instruction set), what can I build?". The former is the role of experimental science (ie. physics), the latter is math (ie. computer science). CRTs seem designed to describe the former. Programming is about answering the latter. I'm not sure if we're all making that distinction - the one between "what is true" and "what is real" [1]. Cheers, Andrey 1. As Alan succinctly comments here: http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#kay
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
