> > A type is not an object in the same way an instantiated type is an object > > -- anymore than a blueprint for a building is the building itself. > > Point 1 > > Yes. You may be onto something here Mark [I assume that's your name]. > Some very intelligent people have suggested that the sloppy use of 'is' > causes more misunderstanding than any useful communication. > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime.
Ah, yes. Very good. Probably relevant. > And in "Gödel, the Mind and the Laws of Physics" Roger Penrose draws a > picture > of Three worlds and the mysteries that connect them > http://sustainedreaction.yuku.com/topic/4931/Three-Worlds-Three-Mysteries#.VW0b9rzGI8o Amazing you reference that site. I used to interact with Ghost Dog who's referenced at the bottom of that post. Are you familiar with sustainedaction.org? > 1. The mathematical world > 2. The mental world > 3. The physical world > > which means that the 'is' in each is different. Yes. That's good. > As enumerated here http://blog.languager.org/2015/03/cs-history-0.html > the history and very existence of CS has arisen from grapping with these > questions. Interesting, will read up more. > Point 2: [unrelated to the content of the OP] > You may wish to consider whether your style and the names you keep assuming > and changing are helping you. Best I can see many people have begun to > killfile you. Yes, I know. The names change based on mood. The canonical address remains the same. People are dumb, but perhaps I am dumb for treating them as equals. Perhaps that's not a fair assumption. I thought it was polite. It's quite clear, that there's a bit of religion here and when I come in and point it out, they pull out their Bible and cast me out. I get too weary to explain more. You know how it is arguing to evangelical Christians. Perhaps another time. Mark, one of my real names. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
