OOps! Correction
 IV
 Modality
 ..Problematic
 ..Assertoric
 ..Apodeictic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency


> Guys! Please don't take offence but, forget the
> "objects TALKING to each other".
> The point of departure of any discussion, to do with simultaneous
processes,
> has to be in the abstract Classes. This was discussed pretty thoroughly by
> Aristotle.
> It was further investigated by Kant over 300 years ago. ie
> http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/ancon.html
> If you start too far into detail your simultaneous design will fail every
> time.
> It is just another one of those eastern tricks, like logic, Zero,
Positional
> Notation ...
> That we in the west are so slow to pick up on.
> Unlike Mathematics where you start from the definition and end with the
> concept.
> Here we start with the concept and end with the definition (of an object).
> I remember A.K. saying something about inventing the future, not the past.
> I suggest you stick it on the fridge.
>
>
> THE CLUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF ALL PURE
> CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING
> Section 2
> $9
> THE LOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE UNDERSTANDING IN
> JUDGMENTS
> If we abstract from all content of a judgment, and con-
> sider only the mere form of understanding, we find that the
> function of thought in judgment can be brought under four
> heads, each of which contains three moments. They may be
> conveniently represented in the following table:
> P 107
> I
> Quantity of Judgments
> ..Universal
> ..Particular
> ..Singular
> II
> Relation
> ..Categorical
> ..Hypothetical
> ..Disjunctive
> III
> Quality
> ..Affirmative
> ..Negative
> ..Infinite
> IV
> ..Modality
> ..Problematic
> ..Assertoric
> .Apodeictic
>
> As this division appears to depart in some, though not in
> any essential respects, from the technical distinctions ordin-
> arily recognised by logicians, the following observations may
> serve to guard against any possible misunderstanding. ..
>
> Caio
> Justin
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok at atlas.otago.ac.nz>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency
>
>
> > Andres Valloud <sqrmax at prodigy.net>, writing about sequential thinking,
> > cited:
> > a theatrical production an account of a long exchange of messages
> > which are answered?  If so, how many simultaneous "processes" would a
> > typical theatrical production have?
> >
> > concentrating on the *verbal* aspects; whereas one can certainly have a
> > verbal interchange and a non-verbal interchange elsewhere happening at
> > the same time,
> >
> > and
> > When I was learning how to type I noticed that I'd think what to say,
> >
> > again, concentrating on a *verbal* task.
> >
> > I dare say we're all agreed that
> >  - people can do more than one thing at once
> >  - people can't do MANY things at once
> >  - people can only say or type one thing at a time
> >
> > The question I think is interesting is whether telling students to
> > think in terms of objects TALKING to each other makes it harder for
> > them to think of concurrent implementations.  Would some other
> > metaphor (perhaps sending couriers with messages, or thinking about
> > a factory with things concurrently moving from machine to machine
> > at the same time) make it easier for them to think of and understand
> > concurrency?
> >
> > All I know about Ken Kahn's ToonTalk is what I've read in this thread,
> > but it sounds as though uses a "physical" rather than "verbal"
> > metaphor, so I think his observations are particularly interesting here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>