From: Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Date: Mon Sep 28 1998 - 20:53:58 MDT
At 08:53 PM 9/28/98 -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
>> The anti-inquiry gangsters who deface the ExI
>> list would do well to observe the mature and
>> civil behavior of one Joe E. Dees:
>>
>> Joe E. Dees (jdees0@students.uwf.edu) wrote:
>>
>> >> > IAN: Change is defined by its displacement from zero
>> >> > change. If a system anticipates its change, it must
>> >> > use "no change" as a hypothetical point of measure
>> >> > the deviation from which defines a state of change.
>> >> > So zero is implicit in the measurement you speak of.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's a tricky definition of change but it's not the only one,
>> >> e.g., FPGA circuits can be made to work without ever using zero.
>>
>>
>> IAN: If you cannot measure no (zero) change, from what
>> do you differentiate change? An EPGA is a set of logic
>> gates on a chip with no exact order or structure, but
>> what is the FPGA-circuit-definition of change? Also,
>> are we talking here about zero as just a digit or
>> zero as a number representing digit and value?
>>
>> There's no change between all events in all space
>> and time, and all events in all space and time;
>> there is therefore zero change over all. No?
>>
>
>
>I did no such thing. Joe E. Dees
IAN: I don't follow. You imply that there is another
definition of change than that which I presented. If
you cannot measure no (zero) change, from what do
you differentiate change? What is the other de-
finition of change that you allege to exist?
Also, as per FPGA, are we talking here about zero
as digit or zero as number, i.e., digit and value?
**************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:37 MST