Re Andrew's 1569 of 27/03 and Bruce's 1556 of 26/03
Andrew writes:
"A reply to Bruce's ope-l:1556. Bruce's calculations are correct. To
my knowledge, all temporalists will accept these numbers. As for
interpretation and conclusions..."
I agree with this. Moreover, to my knowledge this is the first time
a writer who has hitherto dealt only with the simultaneous case, has
put forward examples using the sequential method for discussion. I
think this is a milestone and heartily welcome Bruce's contribution.
For the first time we are discussing what the sequential/temporal
method really has to say, and discussing real problems in this framework,
instead of looking for reasons to rule it out a priori.
It is hard to understate how much this changes the terms of the debate.
900f the frustration and 950f the polemical style which I for one
have been compelled to adopt, arises because the sequential approach has
simply been denied the normal scientific right to be tried out in its
own terms.
Alan