Ron, I suspect we are pushing the math metaphor a little hard but yeah sort of. Much is made about "defining" DQ. Often we like to think we know damn well what it is not. So if you subtract what it is not from everything you get DQ left over. Or you could treat it in the same way calculus was ultimately rendered and sensible and Zeno's Paradox was solved, that is through the concept of the limit. Where DQ is never exactly specified but you know where it is going or what it is approaching.
I have always thought that the reason that the Tao can not be defined is not so much that we don't know exactly what it is right now but it probably won't be "that" in a few minutes and certainly it won't be "that" by tomorrow. So by naming it all we do is create the illusion of recognition. Case Case, The rounding error is the action of dynamic quality. Dynamic quality can not be defined It is infinate possiblity. To name it is to give it an assumed absolute value. Which does not exist. To give it an assumed absolute value decreases the Accuracy but allows it to be percieved. Only when we make 1 static can 1 be useful- ie. assuming an absolute value of 1. When 1 is dynamic it can not be touched,ie. "looked for, it can not be found" 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
