On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:10:27 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/11/2019 12:18 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > I am saying that SINCE there is no unique representation, it's a > > fallacy to take, say one representation, and assert that the > > components in one representation, simultaneously represent the wf. > > But that's an invalid inference. If there is no unique representation, > then there is more than one representation. Some of those consist of a > linear composition of components. You seem to infer that because there > is no unique representation then representations in terms of components > is wrong...but those two things are not only consistent, they are > logically equivalent; each one implies the other. > > Brent >
No; on the contrary, I think all the representations are valid. What's invalid is singling out one representation and asserting the system is simultaneously in ALL the components of THAT representation. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c4d58fab-91de-432a-9dca-1b8165d09b5a%40googlegroups.com.
