Howdy, Ron,
I think I can live with this derivation, and I agree with Keiran's more
general description, as well.
As for clueless, it's a result of the schedule I keep.
gerry
Ron Lake wrote:
HI Gerry:
I understand, but I think it is more a question of being observations
that had some property which is point valued, rather than being points
first. Keiran's example is relevant as the observation could have
multiple geometric characteristics associated with it. I hope I did not
in any way imply you were "clueless" - not at all my intention. I think
your viewpoint leads to more rigid structures for data representation
and that was certainly the case in the domain of conventional
planimetry.
I would argue that no instrumentation can make point measurements - but
that will get us into a longer and likely not so useful debate.
R
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
