Therefore, with respect to this property, you cannot (in general) reason
about or treat groups of two actors as though they were a single actor.
This is incorrect, well, it's based on a false premise.. this part is
incorrect/invalid? (an appropriate word escapes me):
But two actors can
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
This is incorrect, well, it's based on a false premise.. this part is
incorrect/invalid?
A valid argument with a false premise is called an 'unsound' argument. (
This helps a lot, thank you. Your arguments help me to understand how I
fail to communicate to others what I see in actor systems. Finding a way to
address the concerns you bring up will go a long way for my ability to
communicate what I see.
From their definition, I can know that a single actor
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with this, that I see, is that [..] in my physics view of
actors [..] Messages could be lost.
Understanding computational physics is a good thing. More people should do
it. A couple times each
