And many scientists refer to potential energy surfaces and the like. There's a core of enormous representational capability with quite a few well-developed intellectual tools.
Josh On Saturday 02 June 2007 08:31:07 am Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: > On 5/17/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 May 2007 04:47:53 pm Mike Tintner wrote: > > > Josh > > > ". If you'd read the archives, > > > > you'd see that I've advocated constructive solid geometry in Hilbert > > > > spaces > > > > as the basic representational primitive. > > > > > > Would you like to say more re your representational primitives? Sounds > > > interesting. The archives have no reference to "constructive solid geometry > > > in Hilbert spaces" in any form. Personally, I think it's a plot. > > > > MOOO ha ha ha! It's all in your mind :-) > > > > Actually, I can't find it either but (and this is apropos to the subject) we > > rarely remember the exact words we said or heard; we remember more abstract > > representations. Chances I used "CSG" and/or "vector spaces". Hilbert space > > is a rhetorical flourish anyway -- they may need it to describe quantum > > mechanics precisely but we'll never implement it... > > > Many engineering departments make the mistake of never mentioning the > term "Hilbert space" and calling it all signal analysis. > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > > ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
