Re: motion 15
Ah, the voting will be interesting!
People, make sure you participate, and vote on this when the time comes.
Baker
On 5/10/2010 12:27, Nate Hayes wrote:
Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
P1788
shortly before the end of the discussion period I rebounce my concern
about motion 15:
In my opinion Nate shows in his position paper that a properly
defined tetrits value suffices to carry a decoration value (or
property) through a computation. Inother words the "sticky"
propagation of information is feasible.
Hence motion 15 is obsolete !
-- or am I missing the point?
Juergen
Dan what are your plans with the motion ?
I think we shall first vote on tetrits vs octagits.
Nate, can you prepare such motion ?
If Dan would like to withdraw Motion 15, I will do this.
Otherwise if people would like to vote for tetrits with bool_set
semantics instead of octagits, they should vote NO to Motion 15 and then
we can start a follow-up motion for tetrits.
Nate
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------