Return-Path: <John.Harrison-request@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Wed, 5 May 1993 19:48:00 +0100
Received: by antares.mcs.anl.gov id AA02857 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for qed-outgoing);
          Wed, 5 May 1993 13:35:59 -0500
Received: from aerospace.aero.org by antares.mcs.anl.gov with SMTP 
          id AA02850 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <qed@mcs.anl.gov>);
          Wed, 5 May 1993 13:35:54 -0500
Received: from antares.aero.org by aerospace.aero.org with SMTP (5.65c/6.0.GT) 
          id AA02457 for qed@mcs.anl.gov; Wed, 5 May 1993 11:35:49 -0700
Posted-Date: Wed, 5 May 93 11:35:46 PDT
Message-Id: <199305051835.AA02457@aerospace.aero.org>
Received: from calamari.aero.org by antares.aero.org (4.1/AMS-1.0) id AA04527 
          for qed@mcs.anl.gov; Wed, 5 May 93 11:35:47 PDT
Date: Wed, 5 May 93 11:35:46 PDT
From: cal@aero.org
To: qed@mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Continuing Conversation - NO Flames
Sender: qed-owner@mcs.anl.gov
Precedence: bulk


I think Bob Boyer's reply to my somewhat intemperate message has helped
clarify some of the issues over which we differ.  I think some of the major
points are summarized well in his note, though I would probably express them
differently 8-).  More on this later.

My note about failures of imagination was not intended to imply ineptness;
only that we are up against a very hard problem, and we need even more smarts
about abstraction than the kinds currently in use.

I hope the discussion continues to gather more mathematicians who can comment
on their own impressions and expectations for such a system.

more later,
cal