P1788 Motion 18: changing to Yes

[John Pryce <prycejd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788

Thinking over motion 18 I am changing my vote to Yes. This does not mean I have changed my view on the Hayes "domain" tetrit, but I have to take account that the motion says:
> Please note, this motion specifically is NOT meant to take a position on:
> 
>   -- a decision to include or exclude any decoration attribute other than
> the required (by this motion) "domain" attribute
> 
>   -- a decision to allow or prevent any other decoration attribute to be
> defined in terms of something other than a tetrit
> 
> The sole purpose of the present motion is to nail down Level 1 and Level 2
> definitions of a tetrit and to require these semantics are applied to a
> "domain" attribute that shall be part of the standard for all decorations.

I believe Nate will find, in the fulness of time, that his tetrit does not do "what it says on the tin". That it is not possible for his four states to be both consistently and usefully ordered from "best" to "worst" as in his scheme. That he is trying to pack more than two bits worth of information in two bits.

Whereas, I am convinced by the mathematics in my paper "Decoration properties, structural induction, and stickiness" that my two independent "domain" bits plus one "invalid" bit plus one "discontinuous" bit do what they say on the tin.

But, we have chosen to have decorations, and I believe it is a good choice for which we should be grateful to Nate. And a decoration will be, at the absolute minimum, a byte long in most implementations. 

So there's room for Nate's two-bit tetrit, and my four bits, with a couple of bits left over for whatever else we may find desirable in due course.

I have only had a few comments on my paper so far, so I take the liberty of re-sending it.

Regards

John Pryce

Attachment: JDPstickydefsV3.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document