[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
while the laws of physics may be about physical reality, they are not
it. they are theories about it. the same relation applies between rddl
and a namespace.
Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> I want to clear up what may be a misunderstanding that I may have promoted.
>
> ...
>
> So yes, a namespace is a set, but can be, through indirection, thought of as
> more. In my example, which I need to clarify, I discuss Euclidian
> geometry/Newtonian Mechanics and very briefly String Theory. My idea of
> using this as an example is that while our space _looks_ 3 dimensional to
> us, as we look deep into an atom, many higher dimensions seem to appear
> (e.g. String Theory), so that the _analogy_ is simply that while a namespace
> looks like a simple set, one might look inside and derive a more complex
> structure.
as long as one is clear, that this derived structure is not the namespace.
> This is simply an analogy that I am making (it is not in the RDDL
> spec)
>
> Jonathan
>
|
