Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> 
>> Of course reality doesn't change.  The question of map versus
>> territory is *not* an all or nothing
>> question.  *sometimes* the map equals the territory.  Most of the time
>> it does not.
> 
> 
> This is an important point where I agree with Marc. With or without 
> comp the necessity of distinguishing the map and the territory cannot 
> be uniform, there are "meaning"-fixed-point, like when a map is 
> embedded continuously in the territory (assuming some topology in the 
> map and in the territory, this follows by a fixed point theorem by 
> Brouwer, which today admits many interesting computational 
> interpretations.
> 
> Bruno

I don't think you can define a topology on "meaning" that will allow the fixed 
point theorem to apply.

Brent Meeker

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to