[cap-talk] "Composite", was "Same" key

[James A. Donald]

David Hopwood wrote:
 > > > Nothing else in section 6.2 contradicts a single
 > > > object being a special case of a composite.

James A. Donald:
 > > That is silly.

David Hopwood wrote:
 > Do you have a technical argument? If not, then there
 > is nothing for me to respond to here.

It is impermissible for technical definitions to grossly
violate plain English meanings.