Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.4) outside ac.uk; Mon, 19 Apr 1993 04:09:16 +0100 Received: by antares.mcs.anl.gov id AA06299 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for qed-outgoing); Sun, 18 Apr 1993 21:59:56 -0500 Received: from linus.mitre.org by antares.mcs.anl.gov with SMTP id AA06292 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sun, 18 Apr 1993 21:59:54 -0500 Received: from malabar.mitre.org by linus.mitre.org (5.61/RCF-4S) id AA28158; Sun, 18 Apr 93 22:59:51 -0400 Posted-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 93 22:59:48 -0400 Received: by malabar.mitre.org (5.61/RCF-4C) id AA04590; Sun, 18 Apr 93 22:59:48 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Apr 93 22:59:48 -0400 From: jt@org.mitre.linus Message-Id: <9304190259.AA04590@malabar.mitre.org> To: qed@gov.anl.mcs Subject: support Cc: jt@org.mitre.linus Sender: qed-owner@gov.anl.mcs Precedence: bulk Robert Boyer states: It seems to me crucial that if the QED project is to have the support of the now very wide constructivist community, then underlying QED must be some such logic to which everyone can agree. In the current climate of severely restricted research funding, isn't the following also true and perhaps more relevant? If the QED project is to have the support of the scientific community as a whole, then it should have goals that can be stated in ways which people outside the field would find useful and worth funding. In other words, if we want to get this thing going, shouldn't we look outwards? Javier Thayer