Tesselation vs. approximation: Ah, right. I was sloppy with my language. Sorry.
What you say in the blurb below is questionable because it implies something about the representations ... something like an equivalence of expressive power or somesuch. If there is such a thing as expressive power, then a stronger representation should not be recoverable from a weaker one. But I suppose if they all are built from the same type of basis set, then multiple weak ones allow recovery of strong ones. I'm always fascinated by the emphasis we (all) place on coherence and internal consistency. It seems like some sort of rhetorical fallacy, perhaps the fallacy fallacy. Perhaps we can arrive at the truth in spite of completely flawed (e.g. self-inconsistent) representations? Even a broken clock (Trump) is right (a)periodically. On 02/21/2017 01:09 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote: > In some manner every representation whatever default settings have been > applied should be recoverable with every other representation and coherent. > The more coherent viewpoints the closer the approximation of Truth. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
