Difference between revisions of "Book/Patterns in Network Architecture"

From PKC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:


Starting on Chapter 5<ref>{{:Book/Patterns in Network Architecture}}, Chapter 5, Page 145~184</ref> of this book: Naming and Addressing, the notion of naming, and its history has been explicitly described in the chapter. On Chapter 8, the notion of Name and Addressing is formally defined and related to logic and topology again.
Starting on Chapter 5<ref>{{:Book/Patterns in Network Architecture}}, Chapter 5, Page 145~184</ref> of this book: Naming and Addressing, the notion of naming, and its history has been explicitly described in the chapter. On Chapter 8, the notion of Name and Addressing is formally defined and related to logic and topology again.
=China had no Euclid=
{{Blockquote
|text=There was essentially no tradition of theory in Chinese science, and certainly not axiomatic theory, of systematizing the results. Needham points out that the body of knowledge represented by Chinese science was more a set of individual techniques than an organized corpus of knowledge.
|sign=[[John Day]] <ref>{{:Book/Patterns in Network Architecture}} Page 369
}}


{{PagePostfix
{{PagePostfix

Revision as of 00:39, 25 February 2023

Day, John (2008). Patterns in Network Architecture - a return to fundamentals. local page: Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780132252423. 


Starting on Chapter 5[1] of this book: Naming and Addressing, the notion of naming, and its history has been explicitly described in the chapter. On Chapter 8, the notion of Name and Addressing is formally defined and related to logic and topology again.

China had no Euclid

There was essentially no tradition of theory in Chinese science, and certainly not axiomatic theory, of systematizing the results. Needham points out that the body of knowledge represented by Chinese science was more a set of individual techniques than an organized corpus of knowledge.

References

Related Pages

Authored by:John Day