I don't understand that concept of "validator" at all. For glucose, you talk about multiple measures. It sounds like you're saying a more accurate measure is the validator for a less accurate measure. These are all concrete things: urine, blood, etc. But then you go on to say a conceptual notion is the best validator. Is a conceptual notion a more accurate measure than a concrete measure? I don't get it.
circa Tue Dec 23 00:44:54 EST 2014 nick wrote: > My bad. I used "validator" in a narrow technical sense, not in its more > regular sense of a proof. [...] A high sugar content in a single urine test > is a somewhat valid measure of some degree of diabetes, but several blood > glucose tests is a much better validator, and a hemoglobin A1C, which gives > you a measure of how high the glucose has been for the last 3 months, is even > better. The best validator is, of course, kind of a conceptual notion, > because it is the thing itself, the thing that all of these measures are > attempting to get at. And you can NEVER get at it because you always have to > be measuring it or sampling it, etc. Maybe that one-meter rod in Paris (or > whatever) is a pure validator, but if so, it is one of the few. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
