Just revisited George’s open public letter and read the comments from May 17th ff., which I had not noticed but now. I feel, George understood me correctly. I maintain a mostly academic inspiration about the subject.
Filed under: Pile | 3 Comments
Just revisited George’s open public letter and read the comments from May 17th ff., which I had not noticed but now. I feel, George understood me correctly. I maintain a mostly academic inspiration about the subject.
Hi Ralf,
thanks for spending your time on this stuff.
I am writing in the midst of heavy CLP/CHR coding (Constraints) and also about to switch over to music activities, for a few days.
However, Pile is constantly at the back of my mind.
I saw the “axiomatic” or “essential” formulation of Pile, a few days ago, but it still seems formally obscure. It probably can’t be understood as it stands by mathematicians, either!
Also read another paper by a Bulgarian lady mathematician (member of the pile team and Pile Inc), about pile. I am not sure if the definitions there are complete, but they certainly seem insufficient.
Best Regards, and soon more about Pile
@omadeon
Hi George,
Thanks for your continuous input! I completely agree to your judgment of the old Pile literature’s comprehensibility. However, to my mind, Polina’s paper is still the best of the pre ralfw papers.
BTW Aforementioned “axiomatic” or “essential” formulation of Pile (the three equations) could be interpreted as constraints on movement.
Regarding Multiple Form Logic, I’m eager to learn more about that “certain small difficulties” which you’d like to overcome by using Pile.
Best
Ralf B.
after all, there is a new way to make things right, it is the common companies way!
as you all now so well what Mr KRIEG say that erez said, let me say here clearly to what erez invite others for to develop together the pile technology, it is specified in the site http://iswith.info and any other way would go against the intellectual properties right of erez elul, so please try this one, thanks.