Re: Discussion on tetrits motion
> Reply-To: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "P1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Discussion on tetrits motion
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:36:24 -0500
>
> Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Discussion on tetrits motion
> >
> >
> >>> From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> To: "P1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: Discussion on tetrits motion
> >>> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:59:16 -0500
> >>>
> >>> Dan, et. al.
> >>>
> >>> In your 4/17 post, for all 3-bits you included the explicit tables:
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, Nate.
> >>
> >> Those tables were part of a discussion that
> >> only applied to the 'domain' decoration as
> >> I understood it at the time.
> >>
> >> In the motion just made, you will notice
> >> that there are no such tables. The reason
> >> for this is that they will not apply to all
> >> decorations.
> >>
> >> And, as this motions says nothing about any
> >> particular decoration, I would like to make
> >> discussion of particular decorations the
> >> subject of some future motion.
> >>
> >> As I said in the cover letter.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dan
>
> Dan,
>
> I'm trying to make sense of your e-mail:
>
> -- Of course there are no tables in the motion, but the definitions
> that generated the 4/17 tables are the same as the definitions in the
> motion. Below I include both for a "side by side" comparison... the tables
> are a consequence of these definitions.
>
> -- I believe we need to explicitly discuss advantages or
> disadvantages of the proposed definitions with regard to particular
> decorations that we probably will adopt, i.e., having or not having a
> particular decoration should not be the issue, but how suitable the
> motion enables or inhibits the goals of various decorations would be.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Nate
>
Very well. Even though this motion is NOT about any
specific decoration, I grant that a decoration like
'domain' is a likely property that we will want to
track with the decorations described in this motion.
There is a whole rather involved topological argument
I am working up to form a framework for deciding what
makes a good decoration or not. But I am trying to
save that argument for a future discussion followed
by a future motion.
Still, you are correct: I will use that argument to
argue that we should have a 'domain' decoration.
Given that, what is it about THIS motion you would like
to discuss?
And, if possible, can you perhaps frame your discussion
so that it applies to any or at least many properties
for which this motion likely applies?
It might help to keep the discussion within the context
of THIS motion.
Thanks,
Dan