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

[David Hopwood]

James A. Donald wrote:
> 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.

In fact this is commonplace.

Besides, I had been asked to explain what MarkM's definitions are,
which should be separated from the question of how close they are
to the English meanings, and also from the question of how important
it is for technical terms to match English meanings in all cases of
their use.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>