[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Sean McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:25:22 -0500
Maybe you don't but the universe needs them to do chemistry.
What the grove plans will teach him is that lots
of people went down these paths and came up with
different metaphors do describe attaching semantics
required for different states of processes to
some initial well-formed and sometimes valid set.
It's the ultimate "declarations only" approach.
It all goes hazy at the S word, not the Type.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>I think perhaps I need to go study these Grove Plans and Property Sets that
>others keep mentioning on this list. [3,4] Maybe that offers the right path
>to achieving what people are trying to achieve with the PSVI.
But do we really need superstrings in order to do everyday chemistry?
That is all ye know on Earth.
And all you need to know.