- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:22:45 -0500
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: 'Jonathan Rees' <jar@creativecommons.org>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
At 1:06 PM +0000 6/23/08, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > > From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us] >> >> > From: David Booth >> > .... >> > Now, for a given entity, let's suppose we have decided >> > how we choose to think of it and consider the three possibilities: >> > >> > 1. the entity does not have the characteristics of an >> > IR. It is lacking at least one characteristic of an IR. >> > >> > 2. the entity has all of the characteristics of an IR, >> > but it also has other characteristics. >> > >> > 3. the entity has exactly the characteristics of an IR >> > and no more. >> >> >> I don't think this makes sense. Nothing, except a >> mathematical abstraction defined by axioms (group, >> commutative algebra, set, etc.) has some exact list of >> characteristics and no others at all. > >It *would* be a mathematical abstraction in that case. Why do you >say it doesn't make sense for it to be a mathematical abstraction? Oh, well thats OK then. I guess I was assuming that IRs were intended to be actual things in the world. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 14:23:27 UTC