> [Krimel] > My personal preference is to rely on common usages for common terms. In the > spirit of being able to explain complex ideas to children. Furthermore I > thing the use of specialized language just tends to obscure rather than > highlight our meanings. Further furthermore I don't think the MoQ is > complicated enough to warrant a specialized vocabulary.
[Magnus] Ok, we simply disagree here. I don't think the terms, as we use them in the MoQ, *are* common. And I don't think the main purpose is to be able to explain it to children. And I think specialized language make things much easier to discuss and make progress within the field at hand. And I *do* think the MoQ is quite complex enough to make it worth while to keep discussing it for 13 years. [Krimel] I am shocked that we disagree. But I don't see these 13 years of discussion as evidence that "special" words have made discussions here easier or even coherent. I'd say just the opposite. If you said the lack of progress here and the ambiguity of the MoQ's terms have resulted in 13 years of lack of consensus; well that would be a great argument against my own position. > [Krimel] > Actually I meant that as a pun on Doug's creation of quantum speak. But I > think it also means a jump from one electron shell to the next without > passing through the intervening space. These seems an odd sort of "atoms and > void" effect that contributes to quantum weirdness. For your purposes that > jump is a kind of absolutely discrete boundary line but even there what you > have is an electron "cloud". [Magnus} What do you mean by electron "cloud"? [Krimel] Cloud, shell, orbit... Those set distances from the nucleus of an atom wherein one, with some measurable degree of probability, might find an electron. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
