See my reply to your previous note.

Cheers,

Alan

------

At 7:23 PM -0800 11/16/03, Rob Withers wrote:
>--- Rob Withers <reefedjib at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>  It also struck me that we currently view Squeak as a
>>  system of groups (with nested groups and atomic
>>  groups
>>  - stateless, like the number 7), and the
>>  foundational
>>  recursive relation is the msg send.  Would you say
>>  that other ideas in this thread are trying to make
>>  our
>>  system more like a system of fields? ...and I use
>>  that
>>  term non-rigorously, not really knowing what a
>>  field-based algebra is defined.
>
>Alan, I looked here:
>http://www.math.niu.edu/~beachy/aaol/frames_index.html
>and I am not sure whether Squeak currently acts like
>formally defined groups (it violates associativity?)
>nor whether there is much parallel to algebraic fields
>when we start talking about StarLogo and endocrine
>systems and the field-theory of message propogation,
>by Mario Tokoro, you had mentioned. 
>
>I suppose I was asking whether there is any algebraic
>formulism or foundation to this field-theory work, but
>I am asking this from a position that I wont really
>understand the answer.  So let me retract it, for the
>moment, and I will reread Mr. Tokoro's work.
>
>thanks!
>Rob


--