At 08:53 PM 9/28/98 -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> The anti-inquiry gangsters who deface the ExI
>> list would do well to observe the mature and
>> civil behavior of one Joe E. Dees:
>> Joe E. Dees (email@example.com) wrote:
>> >> > IAN: Change is defined by its displacement from zero
>> >> > change. If a system anticipates its change, it must
>> >> > use "no change" as a hypothetical point of measure
>> >> > the deviation from which defines a state of change.
>> >> > So zero is implicit in the measurement you speak of.
>> >> >
>> >> That's a tricky definition of change but it's not the only one,
>> >> e.g., FPGA circuits can be made to work without ever using zero.
>> IAN: If you cannot measure no (zero) change, from what
>> do you differentiate change? An EPGA is a set of logic
>> gates on a chip with no exact order or structure, but
>> what is the FPGA-circuit-definition of change? Also,
>> are we talking here about zero as just a digit or
>> zero as a number representing digit and value?
>> There's no change between all events in all space
>> and time, and all events in all space and time;
>> there is therefore zero change over all. No?
>I did no such thing. Joe E. Dees
IAN: I don't follow. You imply that there is another definition of change than that which I presented. If you cannot measure no (zero) change, from what do you differentiate change? What is the other definition of change that you allege to exist?
Also, as per FPGA, are we talking here about zero as digit or zero as number, i.e., digit and value?