Dear FIS,
Pedro is - as is his habitude - too modest again. He has through 15 years of
patient work nurtured into being a discussion forum about the fundametals of
information, as a general, basic, philosophical topic.
To my knowledge, this endeavour is unique. Even more startling appears to
some
Behalf Of *karl javorszky
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:23 PM
*To:* Pedro Marijuan
*Cc:* fis@listas.unizar.es
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] about fis discussions
Dear FIS,
Pedro is - as is his habitude - too modest again. He has through 15 years
of patient work nurtured into being a discussion
t: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:23 PM
To: Pedro Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] about fis discussions
Dear FIS,
Pedro is - as is his habitude - too modest again. He has through 15 years of
patient work nurtured into being a discussion forum about the fundametals of
information,
e Knowledge-Based Society;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>
The Challenge of Scientometrics
_
From: karl javorszky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 10:44 PM
To: Loet Leydesdorff
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [
At 12:37 AM 07/06/2007, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
Dear Karl,
Unlike physical measures like the meter,
information (probabilistic entropy) can be defined mathematically. Thus,
one would not need an etalon in Paris.
Similarly, I would consider the natural
numbers as a special case. The definit
AIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Stanley N. Salthe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fis] about fis discussions
Cc: "Pedro Marijuan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Loet Leydesdorff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"John Collier"
Dear FIS colleagues,
About the approaches to the information concept commented by Karl, Loet,
John, and Stan, let me argue that some of them have a rather narrow
conceptual domain of applicability. In Karl's approach I have already
argued that his highly suggestive conflation of the sequential
At 06:22 AM 13/06/2007, Pedro Marijuan wrote:
Dear FIS colleagues,
About the approaches to the information concept commented by Karl,
Loet, John, and Stan, let me argue that some of them have a rather
narrow conceptual domain of applicability. In Karl's approach I have
already argued that his
>Pedro Marijuan wrote on 6/6/07:
>...
>Fifteen years from now FIS started its public activities.
>...
>Well, we are now close to 170 in the list
>...
>Indeed a reflection on FIS itself would be convenient at the time
>being, and probably it will take place amongst the next sessions
>...
>
>Overall
Ted Goranson made the remark
> I propose that we take Pedro's challenge seriously and have a discussion
> not about information, but about why we are gathering to talk about
> information here.
This reminds me of something quite illustrative. That is a chemistry on the
verge of the origin of wha
Dear Colleagues:
I think Pedro's initiative to redirect the discussion is
excellent. With time, I started to get impression that
because Information Science is so young, our discussions
started to remind a puppy which from time to time is
noticing its tail and comes back to the eternal chase.
Dear FIS colleagues,
Thanks a lot for the responses. It is nice that we will have a good theme
to deal with during these months of lull (the planned sessions will start
around beginings of September)... Ted has made a very valiant presentation
on fundamental aspects of our strategy. Time will
Friday, June 15, 2007, 12:30:07 PM, Pedro wrote:
>
Perhaps we have not achieved a clear demarcation from “mechanics” yet, theoretically speaking. And that may be another serious problem in itself. In what is different the “informational” from the “mechanical”? Or in my own terms: “Distinc
Dear FIS colleagues,
We have had a couple of self-introductions these two days, Robin and
Javier. It may be a good idea that other parties recently arrived into the
list follow this trend, and introduce themselves during these weeks of lull.
Actually I agree, but partially, in what Robin stat
14 matches
Mail list logo
