subjective:objective::intensio
Locked
subjective:objective::intensio
 
|
Dear Russell Standish and lurkers,
I am thinking hard whether subjectivity and objectivity are related as intension to extension. Pretty soon some philosopher of mind is going to weigh on this conversation and I am going to get killed, but until then, ...... Clearly the two ideas are closely related. It seems to me that for many users subjective and objective carry the meanings of in the mind and in the world. In other words they imply dualism. At least for me intension vs extension does not imply dualism because, I would argue, I can always approximate your point of view, whereas a dualist would say, I can never get into your mind. I would be interested in knowing if you, Dr. Standish, use these words interchangeably. All the best, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [hidden email] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ [hidden email] > [Original Message] > From: <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Date: 11/22/2004 8:09:34 PM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 17, Issue 24 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > [hidden email] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [hidden email] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [hidden email] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. The New York Times > The Next Wave: Immigrant Stories > (Owen Densmore) > 2. friday (Nicholas Thompson) > 3. intentionality and entropy (Nicholas Thompson) > 4. RE: Friday (joseph spinden) > 5. Re: intentionality and entropy (Russell Standish) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:50:05 -0700 > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] The New York Times > The Next Wave: Immigrant > Stories > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Friam <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > Interesting multimedia set of stories about new immigrants to NY .. > sorta breaking the stereotypes: > > http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/11/21/nyregion/thecity/ > 20041121_IMMIGRANTS01_FEATURE.html > > (NYT Requires Registration .. worth the bother, I think) > > Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:45:51 -0500 > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] friday > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > All, > > I assume that I am the only person whose social life is sufficiently > > Right, > > N > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [hidden email] > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ > [hidden email] > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: tm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:45:54 -0500 > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] intentionality and entropy > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]> > Cc: lrudolph <[hidden email]>, JValsiner <[hidden email]>, > jkennison <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > All, > > Steve has been diligently twisting my knickers about complexity and the I might try to burden the rest of you and take some of the weight off of him. > > In my understanding, a proposition is intentional if its truth value depends upon its point of view. Science has always prided itself in advancing propositions that are extensional, i.e., propositions that are true from all points of view. A test of extensionality is whether the truth of a proposition survives substitutions of terms. So for instance, because we know the the titanic was the ship of the White Star Line that struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic (a truth I will hereafter refer to as Titanic>iceberg) and because we also know that Lady Astor booked passage on the Titanic , we can infer correctly that Lady Astor booked passage on the (Titanic>iceberg). All well and good. However, the minute we look at the booking from Lady Astor's point of view, our powers of inference become strictly limited. It does not follow at all from Lady Astor's desire to sail on the titanic that she desired to sail on the (Titanic>Iceberg). Even if she was suicidal, how could she have known? The intentionality of mental terms such as wanting, feeling, thinking etc, that reveal a truth from a point of view only, has long been the bugaboo of psychological "science" and the cause of that terrible disease of psychologists, "physics envy" > > Now I suppose that if I had thought for a moment, I would have realized that the intentionality cat was already out of the bag in physics, if only at the extremes of things. Isn't it the case that the mass of particles depends on whether they are coming at you or going away, that the location of a particle depends on whether you are "looking at" them or not, etc. But these effects I have always cordoned off in my mind as having to do with the weird world of particle physics, and entropy, physicists keep telling me, is a phenomenological concept that has to do with familiar tangible objects like engines and dams and heating systems and falling rocks. Surely the amount of entropy increase associated with a falling rock does not depend on anybody's point of view. > > But allowing, for moment, for the world of objects to house a metaphor for energy quality, consider the following model. Ask you computer to splash out points randomly a long straight line. For kicks, allow the line to be of infinite length. Would you not say that the entropy of the points along that line is pretty much a hundred percent? Ok, now rotate the line on your computer so that it is end on. Now all the points appear on top of one another, Would you not say that the entropy is pretty near zero percent? And couldn't this principle be expanded to more and more dimensions, so that we could never be sure that above a dimension that we were currently looking at there might be a dimension from which all the points might seem to be grouped together and have zero entropy and/or a dimension in which the points appeared splayed out and therefore had infinite entropy. And since the number of dimensions is infinite, could we not suppose that for any set of objects there will always be one dimension from which the entropy is zero and one dimension from which their entropy is maximal? > > I get to this confusion through thinking about the dung fly. All the time the cow is wandering around the field it can be thought of as gathering high quality resources for itself and degrading them. The degraded product is of course the dung, which is precisely ordered for the advantage of the dung fly. So even as the entropy of the stuff in the cow's gut is being decreased but from the point of view of cow , it is being increased from the point of view of the dung fly. If this way of thinking makes any sense, then entropy is an intentional construct. > > This line of logic may be wrong in two quite different ways. One way is for there to be a viewpoint-free way of computing entropy. If such an objective entropy existed, then physicists could concede the intentionality of entropy to this limited extent: the energy in grass and cud is of high quality for cows. the energy in dung is of low quality for cows, but of high quality for dung flies. Still objectivity of entropy is maintained because the dung's quality with respect to the dung fly is still lower than its quality with respect to the cow. Both intentionality and the direction of the arrow were preserved. I assume that this is what you are going to shout at me in a chorus. > > Another way this confusion could be shown to be unnecessary is to argue that my metaphor employing the organization of tangible objects is misguided. Entropy, you would say, is not about structure, it is about the focus and concentration of energy. Even though the matter in the grass is being organized strictly for the benefit of the dung fly, even as the cow extracts from it that matter that that the cow needs, still the energy quality of the dung is less than the energy quality of the grass in absolute terms. This response drives a wedge between entropy as energy dissipation and entropy as matter disorganization. > > Now I gather that many physicists think that entropy is MUCH over analogized ... to organizations, to information, etc. .... These physicists would not be unhappy to see such a wedge driven. > > If any of you are still with me, thanks, and let me know what you think. > > As usual, Rude Is OK. > > Nick > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [hidden email] > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ > [hidden email] > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: tm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:51:01 -0700 > From: "joseph spinden" <[hidden email]> > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Friday > To: <[hidden email]>, "'The Friday Morning Applied > Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > QAAAA0L8y/K3XI06/[hidden email]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I'll probably stop by. > > > > Joe > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Of Nicholas Thompson > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:46 PM > To: Friam > Subject: [FRIAM] friday > > > > All, > > > > I assume that I am the only person whose social life is sufficiently > impoverished that he is likely to be at Janes on Friday. > > > > Right, > > > > N > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology > > Clark University > > [hidden email] > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ > > [hidden email] > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: tm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:09:16 +1100 > From: Russell Standish <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] intentionality and entropy > To: [hidden email], The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Cc: lrudolph <[hidden email]>, JValsiner <[hidden email]>, > jkennison <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:45:54PM -0500, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > Now I suppose that if I had thought for a moment, I would have realized at the extremes of things. Isn't it the case that the mass of particles depends on whether they are coming at you or going away, that the location of a particle depends on whether you are "looking at" them or not, etc. But these effects I have always cordoned off in my mind as having to do with the weird world of particle physics, and entropy, physicists keep telling me, is a phenomenological concept that has to do with familiar tangible objects like engines and dams and heating systems and falling rocks. Surely the amount of entropy increase associated with a falling rock does not depend on anybody's point of view. > > > > My view on this topic is neatly summarised in my paper "On Complexity > and Emergence", which appeared in Complexity International in > 2001. You can get a copy from my website (listed in my .signature > below, for those who fall asleep before reaching the bottom of an > email). > > In brief, entropy is an observer dependent physical quantity. It is > arguable that all of physics is observer dependent, but that is a > different debate!. What makes theromodynamical entropy "objective" is > that all observers accept the same language of thermodynamics - an > observer perversely using a different description would not be talking > about thermodynamic entropy! > > Cheers > > -- > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Director > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") > Australia [hidden email] > Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041123/963401a3/attachment.bin > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > [hidden email] > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 17, Issue 24 > ************************************* |
subjective:objective::intensio
|
|
I have to admit to never having heard of intension or extension, but
merely translated them as subjectivity and objectivity respectively to make sense of your post. To me subjective means observer dependent, and objective means observer independent. As to dualism, this is a notion that presupposes physicalism I suppose, namely that there is a concrete physical reality within which we find ourselves. I am very much sceptical of this point of view, which doesn't seem necessary for understanding the world in which we live. Without physicalism, objective simply applies to those properties that observers must observe, simply by virtue of being conscious. I do not think entropy is objective in this sense. However, if you sign up to a particular description - eg thermodynamical language, then entropy can only mean one thing. In this case, entropy is objective relative to the notion of a thermodynamic state. Cheers On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 11:27:04PM -0500, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Dear Russell Standish and lurkers, > > I am thinking hard whether subjectivity and objectivity are related as > intension to extension. Pretty soon some philosopher of mind is going to > weigh on this conversation and I am going to get killed, but until then, > ...... > > Clearly the two ideas are closely related. It seems to me that for many > users subjective and objective carry the meanings of in the mind and in the > world. In other words they imply dualism. At least for me intension vs > extension does not imply dualism because, I would argue, I can always > approximate your point of view, whereas a dualist would say, I can never > get into your mind. > > I would be interested in knowing if you, Dr. Standish, use these words > interchangeably. > > All the best, > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [hidden email] > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ > [hidden email] > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[hidden email]> > > To: <[hidden email]> > > Date: 11/22/2004 8:09:34 PM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 17, Issue 24 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > [hidden email] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [hidden email] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [hidden email] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. The New York Times > The Next Wave: Immigrant Stories > > (Owen Densmore) > > 2. friday (Nicholas Thompson) > > 3. intentionality and entropy (Nicholas Thompson) > > 4. RE: Friday (joseph spinden) > > 5. Re: intentionality and entropy (Russell Standish) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:50:05 -0700 > > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] The New York Times > The Next Wave: Immigrant > > Stories > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Friam <[hidden email]> > > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > > Interesting multimedia set of stories about new immigrants to NY .. > > sorta breaking the stereotypes: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/11/21/nyregion/thecity/ > > 20041121_IMMIGRANTS01_FEATURE.html > > > > (NYT Requires Registration .. worth the bother, I think) > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:45:51 -0500 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] friday > > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]> > > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > All, > > > > I assume that I am the only person whose social life is sufficiently > impoverished that he is likely to be at Janes on Friday. > > > > Right, > > > > N > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology > > Clark University > > [hidden email] > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ > > [hidden email] > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041122/55f2a69f/attachment-0001.h > tm > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:45:54 -0500 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] intentionality and entropy > > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]> > > Cc: lrudolph <[hidden email]>, JValsiner <[hidden email]>, > > jkennison <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] > > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > All, > > > > Steve has been diligently twisting my knickers about complexity and the > second law and has been much burdened by my questions of late, so I though > I might try to burden the rest of you and take some of the weight off of > him. > > > > In my understanding, a proposition is intentional if its truth value > depends upon its point of view. Science has always prided itself in > advancing propositions that are extensional, i.e., propositions that are > true from all points of view. A test of extensionality is whether the > truth of a proposition survives substitutions of terms. So for instance, > because we know the the titanic was the ship of the White Star Line that > struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic (a truth I will hereafter refer to > as Titanic>iceberg) and because we also know that Lady Astor booked passage > on the Titanic , we can infer correctly that Lady Astor booked passage on > the (Titanic>iceberg). All well and good. However, the minute we look at > the booking from Lady Astor's point of view, our powers of inference become > strictly limited. It does not follow at all from Lady Astor's desire to > sail on the titanic that she desired to sail on the (Titanic>Iceberg). > Even if she was suicidal, how could she have known? The intentionality of > mental terms such as wanting, feeling, thinking etc, that reveal a truth > from a point of view only, has long been the bugaboo of psychological > "science" and the cause of that terrible disease of psychologists, "physics > envy" > > > > Now I suppose that if I had thought for a moment, I would have realized > that the intentionality cat was already out of the bag in physics, if only > at the extremes of things. Isn't it the case that the mass of particles > depends on whether they are coming at you or going away, that the location > of a particle depends on whether you are "looking at" them or not, etc. > But these effects I have always cordoned off in my mind as having to do > with the weird world of particle physics, and entropy, physicists keep > telling me, is a phenomenological concept that has to do with familiar > tangible objects like engines and dams and heating systems and falling > rocks. Surely the amount of entropy increase associated with a falling > rock does not depend on anybody's point of view. > > > > But allowing, for moment, for the world of objects to house > a metaphor for energy quality, consider the following model. Ask you > computer to splash out points randomly a long straight line. For kicks, > allow the line to be of infinite length. Would you not say that the > entropy of the points along that line is pretty much a hundred percent? > Ok, now rotate the line on your computer so that it is end on. Now all the > points appear on top of one another, Would you not say that the entropy is > pretty near zero percent? And couldn't this principle be expanded to more > and more dimensions, so that we could never be sure that above a dimension > that we were currently looking at there might be a dimension from which all > the points might seem to be grouped together and have zero entropy and/or a > dimension in which the points appeared splayed out and therefore had > infinite entropy. And since the number of dimensions is infinite, could we > not suppose that for any set of objects there will always be one dimension > from which the entropy is zero and one dimension from which their entropy > is maximal? > > > > I get to this confusion through thinking about the dung fly. > All the time the cow is wandering around the field it can be thought of as > gathering high quality resources for itself and degrading them. The > degraded product is of course the dung, which is precisely ordered for the > advantage of the dung fly. So even as the entropy of the stuff in the > cow's gut is being decreased but from the point of view of cow , it is > being increased from the point of view of the dung fly. If this way of > thinking makes any sense, then entropy is an intentional construct. > > > > This line of logic may be wrong in two quite different ways. > One way is for there to be a viewpoint-free way of computing entropy. If > such an objective entropy existed, then physicists could concede the > intentionality of entropy to this limited extent: the energy in grass and > cud is of high quality for cows. the energy in dung is of low quality for > cows, but of high quality for dung flies. Still objectivity of entropy is > maintained because the dung's quality with respect to the dung fly is still > lower than its quality with respect to the cow. Both intentionality and > the direction of the arrow were preserved. I assume that this is what you > are going to shout at me in a chorus. > > > > Another way this confusion could be shown to be unnecessary is to argue > that my metaphor employing the organization of tangible objects is > misguided. Entropy, you would say, is not about structure, it is about the > focus and concentration of energy. Even though the matter in the grass is > being organized strictly for the benefit of the dung fly, even as the cow > extracts from it that matter that that the cow needs, still the energy > quality of the dung is less than the energy quality of the grass in > absolute terms. This response drives a wedge between entropy as energy > dissipation and entropy as matter disorganization. > > > > Now I gather that many physicists think that entropy is MUCH over > analogized ... to organizations, to information, etc. .... These > physicists would not be unhappy to see such a wedge driven. > > > > If any of you are still with me, thanks, and let me know what you think. > > > > As usual, Rude Is OK. > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology > > Clark University > > [hidden email] > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ > > [hidden email] > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041122/2976bb51/attachment-0001.h > tm > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:51:01 -0700 > > From: "joseph spinden" <[hidden email]> > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Friday > > To: <[hidden email]>, "'The Friday Morning Applied > > Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]> > > Message-ID: > > > <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAALGcjwjNP0xGV6SBMT09QIAJGAQA > QAAAA0L8y/K3XI06/[hidden email]> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I'll probably stop by. > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf > > Of Nicholas Thompson > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:46 PM > > To: Friam > > Subject: [FRIAM] friday > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > I assume that I am the only person whose social life is sufficiently > > impoverished that he is likely to be at Janes on Friday. > > > > > > > > Right, > > > > > > > > N > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology > > > > Clark University > > > > [hidden email] > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041122/4b6f5412/attachment-0001.h > tm > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:09:16 +1100 > > From: Russell Standish <[hidden email]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] intentionality and entropy > > To: [hidden email], The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > > Cc: lrudolph <[hidden email]>, JValsiner <[hidden email]>, > > jkennison <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] > > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:45:54PM -0500, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > > > Now I suppose that if I had thought for a moment, I would have realized > that the intentionality cat was already out of the bag in physics, if only > at the extremes of things. Isn't it the case that the mass of particles > depends on whether they are coming at you or going away, that the location > of a particle depends on whether you are "looking at" them or not, etc. > But these effects I have always cordoned off in my mind as having to do > with the weird world of particle physics, and entropy, physicists keep > telling me, is a phenomenological concept that has to do with familiar > tangible objects like engines and dams and heating systems and falling > rocks. Surely the amount of entropy increase associated with a falling > rock does not depend on anybody's point of view. > > > > > > > My view on this topic is neatly summarised in my paper "On Complexity > > and Emergence", which appeared in Complexity International in > > 2001. You can get a copy from my website (listed in my .signature > > below, for those who fall asleep before reaching the bottom of an > > email). > > > > In brief, entropy is an observer dependent physical quantity. It is > > arguable that all of physics is observer dependent, but that is a > > different debate!. What makes theromodynamical entropy "objective" is > > that all observers accept the same language of thermodynamics - an > > observer perversely using a different description would not be talking > > about thermodynamic entropy! > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which > > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this > > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A/Prof Russell Standish Director > > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 > (mobile) > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") > > Australia [hidden email] > > Room 2075, Red Centre > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- > > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > > Name: not available > > Type: application/pgp-signature > > Size: 189 bytes > > Desc: not available > > Url : > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041123/963401a3/attachment.bin > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Friam mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 17, Issue 24 > > ************************************* > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.: > http://www.friam.org -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") Australia [hidden email] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041123/db05c6ce/attachment.bin |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |