Joe Niederberger posted Jun 17, 2013 11:42 PM: > GS Chandys states: > >i) Unless I misunderstand, the relationship "more > abstract than" is simply a 'specification' of the > relationship "more ... than" - and that is *fairly* > well understood (*though probably more understanding > is desirable, perhaps even required!) > > What is "more abstract": a Euclidean straight line > infinitely long, or the concept of a arbitrary "real > number"? Prove your result ;-) > I wouldn't like to try to 'specify' which is 'more abstract'. This would be a comparison that is 'less concrete' than my particular interests, viz:
- -- Improving Indian educational systems; - -- Reducing child malnutrition in India; - -- Improving effectiveness of governance in India; (etc, etc, etc - there are literally hundreds of such 'more concrete' issues that I try to work on). > > For real work, dependent on such a relation, one > would require a more operational definition I think. > I believe that Warfield's insights into systems science (about which I regularly post) could help us all needed 'operational definitions' - but that will take some doing (and I'm not about to start such 'doing').
Thanks for your information about David Parnas - I should be able to study his paper (to some extent at least) by this weekend.
GSC > GS Chandy asks: > >Is the "Parnas" you discuss "David Parnas" > > Yes, nice guy. I spent an afternoon with him back in > the 90s. I always appreciated the clarity he brought > to subjects sometimes fraught with "abstractness".