I came across an excellent collection of papers on "Functional Pearls"
at:
www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/SEL-HPC/Articles/GeneratedHtml/functional.pearls.html
If this is something that was widely know, I apologise.
Oherwise, enjoy the papers !
-----------------------------------------------------
/ \ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings.
/ \
\ /
* israelrt <········@optushome.com.au>
S Campion, Adam Tissa, and Israel Ray Thomas are all one and the same
person, right?
///
--
In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * israelrt <········@optushome.com.au>
>
> S Campion, Adam Tissa, and Israel Ray Thomas are all one and the same
> person, right?
"S Campion" and "Adam Tissa" certainly are. I haven't noticed
any reason to believe that "Israel Ray Thomas" is the same as
S. Adam Tissa-Campion.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
"Gareth McCaughan" <················@pobox.com> wrote in message
····································@g.local...
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> > * israelrt <········@optushome.com.au>
> >
> > S Campion, Adam Tissa, and Israel Ray Thomas are all one and the same
> > person, right?
>
> "S Campion" and "Adam Tissa" certainly are. I haven't noticed
> any reason to believe that "Israel Ray Thomas" is the same as
> S. Adam Tissa-Campion.
Occam's Razor. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
(Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.)
Both are from Australia, both post huge amounts of inflammatory
messages to religious oriented groups.
Even if they aren't EQ, they are certainly EQUAL and apparently
immutable, so one could be used in the place of the other in
any computation without affecting the outcome.
"Joe Marshall" <·············@attbi.com> writes:
> Occam's Razor. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
> (Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.)
The English you give there is not from Ockham, who never actually says
that. The Latin quote is authentic, but means "Plurality is not to be
posited without necessity". Similar enough.
The idea that Ockham used the principle of parsimony (the "Razor") as
a cornerstone is however incorrect. It goes back to a treatise called
"On the Principles of Theology", which dates sometime after his death
in the 14th century. The treatise is a retelling of Ockhamist
doctrines, reorganized around the themes of divine omnipotence and
parsimony. While its contents are pretty much all genuinely Ockhamist
thought, the organization is not his own.
Ockham himself did not stress parsimony particularly. As Vincent Paul
Spade puts it:
In practice, Ockham's Razor does not play any _special_ role in
paring down his ontology. After all, parsimony is hardly an
Ockhamist innovation. Versions of it can be found throughout
Aristotle and Ockham's medieval predecessors. Even authors whose
ontologies were not as minimal as Ockham's and who proposed what has
been called an "anti-Razor" to ensure that no _fewer_ entities are
postulated than necessary, merely shifted the emphasis. _No_one_
advocated postulating unnecessary entities. The difference between
Ockham and those he criticizes is over which entities really are
necessary. The Razor by itself does not decide that; for that one
needs further arguments.
Thomas