Difference between revisions of "Book/Patterns in Network Architecture"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{Blockquote | {{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. | |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}}</ref> | |sign=[[John Day]] <ref>{{:Book/Patterns in Network Architecture}}, Page 369</ref> | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 00:40, 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
- ↑ Day, John (2008). Patterns in Network Architecture - a return to fundamentals. local page: Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780132252423. , Chapter 5, Page 145~184
- ↑ Day, John (2008). Patterns in Network Architecture - a return to fundamentals. local page: Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780132252423. , Page 369
Related Pages
Authored by:John Day