Somehow you do not, doctordick , seem to be able to see your own assumptions. When I get a chance I will write exactly what you said about space and time and the assumption that the algorithm is independent of space and time and therefore depends only on differences in time and space.

Assumptions are not a bad thing. They are not much different from definitions. But it is bad not to realize that you have hidden them.

Having fun- Richard

• Space and time! - doctordick - April 18, 2001 - 16:51 UTC
  • Here is where your shift symmetry assumption comes in - yanniru - April 19, 2001 - 12:35 UTC
    • I do not understand what I have assumed. - doctordick - April 19, 2001 - 17:32 UTC
      • Shift symmetry is still an assumption - yanniru - April 19, 2001 - 22:28 UTC
        • You misunderstand the issue here! - doctordick - April 25, 2001 - 20:19 UTC
          • Not totally undefined - yanniru - April 26, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
            • You are looking at the problem incorrectly. - doctordick - April 26, 2001 - 20:39 UTC
              • Your transformation is defined - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
                • Let me try again. - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
                • From another perspective! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
                • Or a third! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
                  • Yes, I am defining my model as symmetric - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
                    • Ignore the development!! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
                      • Classical physics is completely based on rationality, except per - yanniru - May 1, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
                    • A second issue! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 15:02 UTC