[From Bruce Abbott (960202.0655 EST)]
Bill Powers (960202.0100 MST) --
Bruce Abbott (960201.1820 EST)
By the way, the disturbance would appear to exert excellent control
over system output so long as the reference signal remained
constant, while exerting very weak (perhaps even undetected)
control over the sfv.True, but the disturbance would still not vary so as to restore the
output to any particular value, when the output is arbitrarily altered
by changing one of the variables on which it depends. So the disturbance
would not spontefact the output. Your usage of "control" has no relation
to spontefaction.
No, of course it doesn't. I didn't say it did.
YOUR USAGE OF "CONTROL" HAS NO RELATION TO SPONTEFACTION.
Exactly so. This is a surprise to you?
Come on, Bruce, I need an "ack" on this. I feel that I'm shouting down a
bottomless pit. What you're musing about is just determination or
influence.
That's what you asked me to do. You (960201.1415 MST) said:
How about a comment on your use of control, influence, and determine as
if they had equivalent meanings?
It has nothing to do with spontefaction, even though you
refer to it by the term "control." If you had realized this from the
start, you would never have thought I was joking.
Bill, something seems to have gone haywire here. First we come up with a
new term so that we can separate servo-mechanism-type control from EAB-type
control. You then ask me to discuss the latter and its relationship to
words like "influence" and "determine." This I do, and then you tell me (in
capital letters no less) that my usage of "control" has no relation to
spontefaction.
No kidding. Control and spontefaction refer to different things, remember?
Wasn't separating these two usages the whole point? Now you think that _I_
don't know the difference?
You're not shouting down a bottomless pit, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Regards,
Bruce