Novus  <novus@ngoqde.org> wrote:
+---------------
| Ken Tilton <kentilton@gmail.com> said:
| >> Actually, according to the standard convention,....
| > 
| > Well bless the bozone* layer, I need an autoresponder for you clowns 
| > (but I /am/ looking forward to the next poster to point out the 
| > convention).
| 
| If only the rest of us were as bright as you think you are.
+---------------

I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that Ken is simply
pointing out an obvious ambiguity in the convention -- that it really
depends on the etymological evolution of the terms as to which variant
is "correct". That is, if the first thing that happened eons ago was
that someone invented a predicate that asked "Is this thingy here in
my hand an idea?", then a proper name for that might have been IDEAP.
Then if *later* someone came up with a variant which referred to bad
ideas, then the proper spelling of the variant would be BAD-IDEAP.
But on the other hand, if in the beginning of time the first reference
was to a BAD-IDEA type, than the later creation of a predicate to
inquire as to whether an object was of that type would properly be
spelled BAD-IDEA-P.

That is, for some predicates you cannot unambiguously determine
a single "correct" spelling without knowing the historical usage
of its subcomponent names. [And maybe not even then...]


-Rob

p.s. I seem to recall that it was this notion that the path
integrals of various paths between the same two points might be
different -- and indeed some of them definable in closed form and
some not(!) -- that led to the development of that branch of
mathematics that was eventually called "catastrophe theory"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory>.

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607