Dear Loet and Jerry,
let me comment on your interesting exchange:
you write:
one studies specific arrangements and configurations. (I mentioned graphs.)
However, the red herring emerges when these configurations are made the
subject of "information theory" (in contrast to "informatics") without
f
Karl
Dear Loet and Jerry,
let me comment on your interesting exchange:
you write:
one studies specific arrangements and configurations. (I mentioned graphs.)
However, the red herring emerges when these configurations are made the
subject of "information theory" (in contrast to "informatics
Dear Michel, Jerry and Loet,
Welcome back to the fray, Jerry, but I recall a kind of "gentlemen's
agreement" we made at our meeting in Liège, namely, that I can find a place
for your theory, but you should reciprocally find a place for mine! In the
following, I will try to disentangle two major
> without excluding either.
And without confounding one another!
We are able to specify the differences and then to translate meaningfully
between different discourses.
Best,
Loet
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/
Dear Gavin, Loet and Colleagues,
Gavin raises a fair question as to the reasons for my objection to the use of
category theory
with respect to information. My answer is that it suffers from the same
limitations as standard truth-functional logic, set theory and mereology:
Logic: absolute separa
Hi Joseph
Dear Gavin, Loet and Colleagues,
Gavin raises a fair question as to the reasons for my objection to the use
of category theory
with respect to information. My answer is that it suffers from the same
limitations as standard truth-functional logic, set theory and mereology:
Joseph --
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
> **
> Dear Gavin, Loet and Colleagues,
>
> Gavin raises a fair question as to the reasons for my objection to the use
> of category theory
> with respect to information. My answer is that it suffers from the same
> limitations as
