Talk:Consistency: Difference between revisions
PROPOSAL: change of definition of consistency to distance d |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
(It also means "consistency to distance 1/2" can be seen as guaranteeing - at worst - a second-best mapping of an interval, and that consistency to distance k as k approaches 0 implies infinite inconsistency, thus representing ever-weaker consistency, and ultimately, no consistency, as you can't move anywhere without being inconsistent, AKA you ''can'' move 0 distance while ''being'' consistent.) | (It also means "consistency to distance 1/2" can be seen as guaranteeing - at worst - a second-best mapping of an interval, and that consistency to distance k as k approaches 0 implies infinite inconsistency, thus representing ever-weaker consistency, and ultimately, no consistency, as you can't move anywhere without being inconsistent, AKA you ''can'' move 0 distance while ''being'' consistent.) | ||
--[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 04:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC) | --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 04:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
: Not going to lie, I'm somewhat against alternative this proposal because I'm not settling for second-best mappings in when it comes to the definition of things like telicity. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC) | |||