1. 3
  1.  

  2. 5

    No comment on content, but nits while you’re here:

    the use of brains have been avoided for that reason.

    Should be ‘has’ (because it’s the use that’s been avoided, and ‘use’ is singular).

    perhaps you might need that spectra

    ‘Spectra’ is plural; go for ‘spectrum’ or ‘those’. (Also: more stylistic, but ‘perhaps’ and might’ is redundant.)

    There are infinitely more rationals than integers

    Rationals and integers have the same cardinality.

    1. 2

      Submission statement: technology systems are scoped from the outside-in, beginning with the universe, then non-functionals, then acceptance tests. Finally a programming language is chosen and unit/TDD tests may be used to code to the acceptance tests from the inside-out.

      This is the first essay in a four-part series for a book I’m writing about moving from conversations with lots of perhaps contentious users to a verified formal system. It’s a long read about beginning the systems scoping process.

      1. 2

        I don’t this really holds up as an argument. It asserts at length that negatives are better than positives, does nothing to demonstrate that. If you can say something is “not x” and “not y” you need at least an idea in the listener of x and y. It is not demonstrated why you can’t cut down the field of meaning with “x and y” just as effectively.

        Given that we in fact do use negative and positive terms to describe things, I think this really is an attempt at spurious cleverness. There’s something to the fizzy overlaying of concepts though.