On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Steffen wrote:
On 26/09/2007, at 21.06, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Maybe I didn't write as much as that on that topic in the actual paper, as
I was already well over the maximum "allowed" length.
Id say: Spice that paper with all of that and distribute it. I'd like to read
it. Lenght should not be a problem as long as you stay true to your
reductionist and concise approach -- that's what it seam to promise anyhoo.
I had to look up the word "reductionist", because I had been so much
filled with the postmodern mysticism that permeates contemporary culture,
that I was assuming it meant something else. In the general sense offered
by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism , it makes a lot more sense.
About the other meanings: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3045
talks in favour of reductionism in an interesting way. Also, I've seen
the concept of "Greedy Reductionism" being said "Reductionism", which
certainly confuses matters, and confused me for a long time.
For a written program (including pd patches but excluding the training of
neural networks), the complete construction of the program is based on
other existing constructions, so actually it can't be anything else than
reductionist in terms of looking at the implementation or even the
interface, but certainly it is the case that introducing intermediate
levels of structure of explanations, can be called "more reductionist"
than not doing it.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
