Norm,
I suggest that "thinking" is a process and "understanding" an outcome of that
process. With respect to the modeling relation, thinking is making use of the MR
while "understanding" is the result having decided (subjectivly) that the MR
commutes.
Respectfully,
Don
"Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
> I like to distinguish between thinking and understanding. Is there anything to be
> gained from substituting "understanding" for "thinking" in your sentence?
>
> I may be "understanding" something, and my
> dog, and my fish, and I don't know about my earwig, but my sourdough
> starter, and the water swirling in my toilet bowl, and my glass of iced
> tea, are NOT.
>
> NKM
>
> Cliff Joslyn wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Parsimony, on the other hand, argues EXACTLY to not extend terminology
> > beyond its appropriate boundaries. I may be "thinking" something, and my
> > dog, and my fish, and I don't know about my earwig, but my sourdough
> > starter, and the water swirling in my toilet bowl, and my glass of iced
> > tea, are NOT.
> >
>
> ========================================
> Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "Norman K. McPhail" <norm@socal.wanet.com>
========================================
Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Don Mikulecky <mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 17:52:47 BST