Re: (now long) Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"

[Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> To: Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: (now long) Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
> 
> Dan et al,
> 
> On first reading, my own preference would be with your original
> tetrit proposal ({T,F} {T}, {F}, {}}, and duplicating it (with
> an extra bit) to have both a sticky copy and a non-sticky copy.
> The reason is because the proposal you just made seems less
> intuitive.  Furthermore, although I may not fully understand
> it yet, it seems that it blurs the distinction between some
> points in the present arguments having the property while
> other points in the present arguments do not, versus points in
> the present arguments having the property while points in
> the past arguments do not.
> 
> Baker
> 

	Baker,

	I have been thinking along similar lines.

	I was going to post an exposition of that thinking
	earlier today but it has gotten rather long & involved
	& I need some more time to think about it.

	But I thought I'd let you know that I WAS thinking
	about it & that it is coming soon.

	I hope. :-)

				Dan