"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gaby, | | On August 23, 2006 4:12 PM you wrote: | | > ... | > my point is that that distinction is largely an academic exercise | > in ways we approach the subject matter, and NOT a really deep | > one (though it may be given substance). | | I think you are wrong. I think Steven Watt's paper provides | a very substantive example:
it seems we have entered the traditional phase of opinion-vs-proof-by-authority. I guess, the best we can do is to postpone the discussion for more data. [...] | > As a matter of fact, *there are structures* in formal symbolic | > computation -- rewriting rules are seldom used bindly without | > structures, nor assumptions. It is a matter of how and when | > those structures are expressed and taken advantages of. | > | | When you have an opportunity I would like to see you expand | on this idea. I do not clearly understand what you mean by | "structure" in this case. think of it as "types" in software construction. [...] | > our respective beliefs of why Axiom failed. | > | | I do not agree that Axiom has "failed". Lack of commercial | success should not be construed as failure in this kind of | research. when, given the many times you have blamed NAG for the impact of its commercial failure with Axiom, I suspect you can just decree that these aspects of the project are independent and have no impact on each other. How do you measure success? -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
