[EM] "Beatpath GMC" compliance a mistaken standard?

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Chris Benham,

you wrote (9 Jan 2009):

> I only wrote that the beatpath GMC *concept* is
> "vulnerable to Mono-add-Plump."

Kevin Venzke wrote (9 Jan 2009):

> I find it difficult to nail down what this means.
> It seems clear from Markus' mails that he isn't
> going to discuss a criterion as though it were
> a method. Woodall also had to define criteria
> differently in order to apply them to sets. But
> to apply criteria to a concept?

I agree with Kevin. The problem is that you treat
a criterion X as if it was a method and then you
criticize this "method" X for "being vulnerable"
to criterion Y.

So in effect, you are criticizing criterion X for
not implying criterion Y. But you seem not to
see this.

Markus Schulze