Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use(in perception)
On 31 Dec 2012, at 14:13, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Cowboy, Reason and truth can only be expressed objectively in words, and symbols. They are public, communicable expressions. Reason only. Truth is public only in bet and inference. Public truth is always "truth?". Bruno Experience is subjective (1p) and so cannot be so expressed, at least precisely. The objective expression or description of an experience (3p) for communcation purposes is therefore never exact. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/31/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-30, 10:48:19 Subject: Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use(in perception) On 29 Dec 2012, at 21:32, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Hi Bruno, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote: The classic example 3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only plural_1p. But no problem as, locally, first person plural behaves like a 3p notion. That is indeed why we confuse them and believe the mind comes from matter activity, when eventually matter activity is a way mind articulate the information about its the most probable computations. 2p = secondness = is when I feel the pain 1p = firstness = is when somebody stick me with a pin (Quale) Is not "I feel pain" a quale? Also 3p is when I know and/or say that the coffee tastes bad (mind or reason) ? If you can use reason to explain a taste, I will ask you the method. The method is specializing in summing magnitudes of local infinities. With long enough computational history, you can thus explain a taste, even with fuzzy linguistic markers. Like wine tasters will agree that a vintage has a layer of "shoe leather". This means you can educate taste, not really explaining it. Here I meant explaining taste to someone having no taste, or explaining what is taste. Whether the receiver of the message "understands" is a different question and is domain related. Say math, you cannot communicate with me some funky tensor equation with words alone, unless I have enough computational history with the concept in question. Here you are right, in the sense that I can't explain the natural numbers, if you don't have some intuition of them already. Once you agree on numbers, I can explain the tensor, even if it can take time. Music is deceptive, in that everybody has apparent access but I don't think I have to make the case that some music is tasteless. Therefore, not everybody has musical taste. Same for wine. Having said that, I'll grant, with sufficient computational history, there are schools of taste that differ. Like the styles that different architects come to prefer. But with such history, even a romantic-school architect, will concede that a building is well designed by a minimalist Bauhaus style architect and can get versed in that style, or the magnitudes of those local infinities. Yes. In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue". (Des go?s et des couleurs on ne discute pas). That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion that they do for marketing ;) In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "?er Geschmack l?st sich bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement above. But alas, Germans are known for their lack of taste and world wars and we don't market our wines and cheeses so well. It is still fact however, that Germany exports more cheese to France than the opposite. We just give it some Italian name, and the French buy it, as anybody with culinary taste will not buy from the Krauts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambozola Yup, that's German and the French buy more of that from the supermarket shelves than Germans buy Roquefort and co. I like both culinary arts, but then my country is influenced by both. I think we develop taste early in the childhood. 2p is when I am tasting something funny about the coffee. (feeling or sensing) I will ask you for the coffee recipe. Funny? Cannabis, salvia or even alcohol, I can imagine. But Coffee!?! Same. I want that coffee :) PGC :) Bruno 1p is when I take a sip of coffee.(body-QUALE- input to sensing nerves) OK, I see why you say this. Keep in mind in UDA 1p is just defined by the content of the diary of the guy
Re: Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use(in perception)
Hi Cowboy, Reason and truth can only be expressed objectively in words, and symbols. They are public, communicable expressions. Experience is subjective (1p) and so cannot be so expressed, at least precisely. The objective expression or description of an experience (3p) for communcation purposes is therefore never exact. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/31/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-30, 10:48:19 Subject: Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use(in perception) On 29 Dec 2012, at 21:32, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Hi Bruno, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote: The classic example 3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only plural_1p. But no problem as, locally, first person plural behaves like a 3p notion. That is indeed why we confuse them and believe the mind comes from matter activity, when eventually matter activity is a way mind articulate the information about its the most probable computations. 2p = secondness = is when I feel the pain 1p = firstness = is when somebody stick me with a pin (Quale) Is not "I feel pain" a quale? Also 3p is when I know and/or say that the coffee tastes bad (mind or reason) ? If you can use reason to explain a taste, I will ask you the method. The method is specializing in summing magnitudes of local infinities. With long enough computational history, you can thus explain a taste, even with fuzzy linguistic markers. Like wine tasters will agree that a vintage has a layer of "shoe leather". This means you can educate taste, not really explaining it. Here I meant explaining taste to someone having no taste, or explaining what is taste. Whether the receiver of the message "understands" is a different question and is domain related. Say math, you cannot communicate with me some funky tensor equation with words alone, unless I have enough computational history with the concept in question. Here you are right, in the sense that I can't explain the natural numbers, if you don't have some intuition of them already. Once you agree on numbers, I can explain the tensor, even if it can take time. Music is deceptive, in that everybody has apparent access but I don't think I have to make the case that some music is tasteless. Therefore, not everybody has musical taste. Same for wine. Having said that, I'll grant, with sufficient computational history, there are schools of taste that differ. Like the styles that different architects come to prefer. But with such history, even a romantic-school architect, will concede that a building is well designed by a minimalist Bauhaus style architect and can get versed in that style, or the magnitudes of those local infinities. Yes. In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue". (Des go?s et des couleurs on ne discute pas). That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion that they do for marketing ;) In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "?er Geschmack l?st sich bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement above. But alas, Germans are known for their lack of taste and world wars and we don't market our wines and cheeses so well. It is still fact however, that Germany exports more cheese to France than the opposite. We just give it some Italian name, and the French buy it, as anybody with culinary taste will not buy from the Krauts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambozola Yup, that's German and the French buy more of that from the supermarket shelves than Germans buy Roquefort and co. I like both culinary arts, but then my country is influenced by both. I think we develop taste early in the childhood. 2p is when I am tasting something funny about the coffee. (feeling or sensing) I will ask you for the coffee recipe. Funny? Cannabis, salvia or even alcohol, I can imagine. But Coffee!?! Same. I want that coffee :) PGC :) Bruno 1p is when I take a sip of coffee.(body-QUALE- input to sensing nerves) OK, I see why you say this. Keep in mind in UDA 1p is just defined by the content of the diary of the guy or girl annihilated and reconstituted, with their diary, as opposed to the diary of an external observer (3p). In AUDA the 1p is defined
Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use (in perception)
On 29 Dec 2012, at 22:08, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2012 12:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue". (Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas). That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion that they do for marketing ;) In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "Über Geschmack lässt sich bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement above. I thought every body just quoted the latin, "De gustibus non est disputandum.", You are right. I forget my latin! which is literally the opposite of the German (the Romans were more tolerant?) but probably means the same. Yes. Arguing is the stage before stopping arguing :) Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use (in perception)
On 29 Dec 2012, at 21:32, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Hi Bruno, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote: The classic example 3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only plural_1p. But no problem as, locally, first person plural behaves like a 3p notion. That is indeed why we confuse them and believe the mind comes from matter activity, when eventually matter activity is a way mind articulate the information about its the most probable computations. 2p = secondness = is when I feel the pain 1p = firstness = is when somebody stick me with a pin (Quale) Is not "I feel pain" a quale? Also 3p is when I know and/or say that the coffee tastes bad (mind or reason) ? If you can use reason to explain a taste, I will ask you the method. The method is specializing in summing magnitudes of local infinities. With long enough computational history, you can thus explain a taste, even with fuzzy linguistic markers. Like wine tasters will agree that a vintage has a layer of "shoe leather". This means you can educate taste, not really explaining it. Here I meant explaining taste to someone having no taste, or explaining what is taste. Whether the receiver of the message "understands" is a different question and is domain related. Say math, you cannot communicate with me some funky tensor equation with words alone, unless I have enough computational history with the concept in question. Here you are right, in the sense that I can't explain the natural numbers, if you don't have some intuition of them already. Once you agree on numbers, I can explain the tensor, even if it can take time. Music is deceptive, in that everybody has apparent access but I don't think I have to make the case that some music is tasteless. Therefore, not everybody has musical taste. Same for wine. Having said that, I'll grant, with sufficient computational history, there are schools of taste that differ. Like the styles that different architects come to prefer. But with such history, even a romantic-school architect, will concede that a building is well designed by a minimalist Bauhaus style architect and can get versed in that style, or the magnitudes of those local infinities. Yes. In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue". (Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas). That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion that they do for marketing ;) In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "Über Geschmack lässt sich bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement above. But alas, Germans are known for their lack of taste and world wars and we don't market our wines and cheeses so well. It is still fact however, that Germany exports more cheese to France than the opposite. We just give it some Italian name, and the French buy it, as anybody with culinary taste will not buy from the Krauts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambozola Yup, that's German and the French buy more of that from the supermarket shelves than Germans buy Roquefort and co. I like both culinary arts, but then my country is influenced by both. I think we develop taste early in the childhood. 2p is when I am tasting something funny about the coffee. (feeling or sensing) I will ask you for the coffee recipe. Funny? Cannabis, salvia or even alcohol, I can imagine. But Coffee!?! Same. I want that coffee :) PGC :) Bruno 1p is when I take a sip of coffee.(body-QUALE- input to sensing nerves) OK, I see why you say this. Keep in mind in UDA 1p is just defined by the content of the diary of the guy or girl annihilated and reconstituted, with their diary, as opposed to the diary of an external observer (3p). In AUDA the 1p is defined by "a correct belief" with respect to a probable situation. Just to help you for other threads. Bruno --- A Few Definitions of the categories http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-frame.htm The Categories as used in perception: I 1p--Quality (Reference to a Ground), II 2p-- Relation (Reference to a Correlate), II 3p--Representation (Reference to an Interpretant), I 1p-- Quale (that which refers to a ground), II 2p--Relate (that which refers to a ground and correlate, ) III 3p--Representamen (that which refers to ground, correlate, and interpretant. ) http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html "Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of indecomposable concepts correspond three classe
Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use (in perception)
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/29/2012 12:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > >> In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue". >> (Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas). >> >> > That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the > notion that they do for marketing ;) > > In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but > also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "Über Geschmack lässt sich > bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can > argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement > above. > > > I thought every body just quoted the latin, "De gustibus non est > disputandum.", which is literally the opposite of the German (the Romans > were more tolerant?) but probably means the same. > > It does go both ways in German usage. Is somebody tolerant for letting other views or tastes prevail, like tolerance of bad music or political corruption? Or is somebody tolerant for engaging other views verbally, facing the possibility that one's views might be wrong, therefore tolerating the insecurity of exposure and dispute (unlike most forums and lists)? A tolerant attitude has to include, in this frame, not merely accepting other tastes' potential nonsense, but also accepting possibility of one's own bad taste, engaging such possibility by discussion and interaction without shame. I guess capacity of aesthetic judgement, what taste boils down to both "internally" and in our ability to convey such through some language, formal or not, or means of interaction, e.g. music, cooking, or making love, is graded and can always become more refined as we grow; which is why my ear is better than when I first picked up a guitar, and why it is so much worse than somebody who has played 20 years more than me. This also translates to the ability to communicate that. An overly defensive, insecure or arrogant attitude is what leads to disputes feared in the Latin quote and marks to some extent everybody being close-minded. When are we tolerant and when are we too afraid to step in when ugly stuff happens? Good point, Brent. Mark > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use (in perception)
On 12/29/2012 12:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue". (Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas). That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion that they do for marketing ;) In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "Über Geschmack lässt sich bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement above. I thought every body just quoted the latin, "De gustibus non est disputandum.", which is literally the opposite of the German (the Romans were more tolerant?) but probably means the same. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use (in perception)
Hi Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> The classic example
>
> 3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain
>
>
> Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only
> plural_1p. But no problem as, locally, first person plural behaves like a
> 3p notion. That is indeed why we confuse them and believe the mind comes
> from matter activity, when eventually matter activity is a way mind
> articulate the information about its the most probable computations.
>
>
>
> 2p = secondness = is when I feel the pain
>
> 1p = firstness = is when somebody stick me with a pin (Quale)
>
>
> Is not "I feel pain" a quale?
>
>
>
>
>
> Also
>
> 3p is when I know and/or say that the coffee tastes bad (mind or reason)
>
>
> ? If you can use reason to explain a taste, I will ask you the method.
>
>
The method is specializing in summing magnitudes of local infinities. With
long enough computational history, you can thus explain a taste, even with
fuzzy linguistic markers. Like wine tasters will agree that a vintage has a
layer of "shoe leather".
Whether the receiver of the message "understands" is a different question
and is domain related. Say math, you cannot communicate with me some funky
tensor equation with words alone, unless I have enough computational
history with the concept in question.
Music is deceptive, in that everybody has apparent access but I don't think
I have to make the case that some music is tasteless. Therefore, not
everybody has musical taste.
Having said that, I'll grant, with sufficient computational history, there
are schools of taste that differ. Like the styles that different architects
come to prefer. But with such history, even a romantic-school architect,
will concede that a building is well designed by a minimalist Bauhaus style
architect and can get versed in that style, or the magnitudes of those
local infinities.
> In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't argue".
> (Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas).
>
>
That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion
that they do for marketing ;)
In Germany this is more ambiguous, as we have the equivalent statement but
also its negation: a popular turn-of-phrase is "Über Geschmack lässt sich
bekanntlich streiten." Roughly translates "On matters taste, we can
argue/negotiate/dispute", which fits with the fuzzy linguistic statement
above.
But alas, Germans are known for their lack of taste and world wars and we
don't market our wines and cheeses so well. It is still fact however, that
Germany exports more cheese to France than the opposite. We just give it
some Italian name, and the French buy it, as anybody with culinary taste
will not buy from the Krauts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambozola
Yup, that's German and the French buy more of that from the supermarket
shelves than Germans buy Roquefort and co.
>
>
> 2p is when I am tasting something funny about the coffee. (feeling or
> sensing)
>
>
> I will ask you for the coffee recipe.
>
> Funny?
>
> Cannabis, salvia or even alcohol, I can imagine. But Coffee!?!
>
>
Same. I want that coffee :)
PGC
>
>
>
> 1p is when I take a sip of coffee.(body-QUALE- input to sensing nerves)
>
>
>
> OK, I see why you say this.
>
> Keep in mind in UDA 1p is just defined by the content of the diary of the
> guy or girl annihilated and reconstituted, with their diary, as opposed to
> the diary of an external observer (3p). In AUDA the 1p is defined by "a
> correct belief" with respect to a probable situation.
>
> Just to help you for other threads.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> A Few Definitions of the categories
>
> http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-frame.htm
>
>
> The Categories as used in perception:
>
> I 1p--Quality (Reference to a Ground),
> II 2p-- Relation (Reference to a Correlate),
> II 3p--Representation (Reference to an Interpretant),
>
> I 1p-- Quale (that which refers to a ground),
> II 2p--Relate (that which refers to a ground and correlate, )
> III 3p--Representamen (that which refers to ground, correlate, and
> interpretant. )
>
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html
>
> "Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
> indecomposable concepts correspond
> three classes of characters or predicates.
>
> Firstly come " firstnesses," or positive internal characters of the
> subject in itself;
>
> secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of one subject or substance
> on another,
> regardless of law or of any third subject;
>
> thirdly comes "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental influence of
> one subject on
> another relatively to a third." ('Pragmatism', CP 5.469, 1907)
>
>
>
> Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively
> and without reference to anything else.
> Secondnes
Re: A few definitions of the categories and two examples of their use (in perception)
On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote:
The classic example
3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain
Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only
plural_1p. But no problem as, locally, first person plural behaves
like a 3p notion. That is indeed why we confuse them and believe the
mind comes from matter activity, when eventually matter activity is a
way mind articulate the information about its the most probable
computations.
2p = secondness = is when I feel the pain
1p = firstness = is when somebody stick me with a pin (Quale)
Is not "I feel pain" a quale?
Also
3p is when I know and/or say that the coffee tastes bad (mind or
reason)
? If you can use reason to explain a taste, I will ask you the method.
In french we say popularly that "about taste and color we don't
argue". (Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas).
2p is when I am tasting something funny about the coffee. (feeling
or sensing)
I will ask you for the coffee recipe.
Funny?
Cannabis, salvia or even alcohol, I can imagine. But Coffee!?!
1p is when I take a sip of coffee.(body-QUALE- input to sensing
nerves)
OK, I see why you say this.
Keep in mind in UDA 1p is just defined by the content of the diary of
the guy or girl annihilated and reconstituted, with their diary, as
opposed to the diary of an external observer (3p). In AUDA the 1p is
defined by "a correct belief" with respect to a probable situation.
Just to help you for other threads.
Bruno
---
A Few Definitions of the categories
http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-frame.htm
The Categories as used in perception:
I 1p--Quality (Reference to a Ground),
II 2p-- Relation (Reference to a Correlate),
II 3p--Representation (Reference to an Interpretant),
I 1p-- Quale (that which refers to a ground),
II 2p--Relate (that which refers to a ground and correlate, )
III 3p--Representamen (that which refers to ground, correlate, and
interpretant. )
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html
"Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
indecomposable concepts correspond
three classes of characters or predicates.
Firstly come " firstnesses," or positive internal characters of the
subject in itself;
secondly come "secondnesses," or brute actions of one subject or
substance on another,
regardless of law or of any third subject;
thirdly comes "thirdnesses," or the mental or quasi-mental influence
of one subject on
another relatively to a third." ('Pragmatism', CP 5.469, 1907)
Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
positively and without reference to anything else.
Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with
respect to a second but regardless of any third.
Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in
bringing a second and third into relation to each other."
>>
>> The following equivalences should hold >>
>> 3p = Thirdness or III
>> 2p = Secondness or II
>> 1p = Firstness or I.
>>
>> Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic,
>> while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic
>> logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part.
>> So .
>>
>> Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes:
>>
>> http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html
>>
>>
>> "Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
>> positively and without reference to anything else.
>>
>> Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
>> with respect to a second but regardless of any third.
>>
>> Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
>> in bringing a second and third into relation to each other."
>> (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904)"
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
