Gee, I blew it. I did almost use this formulation:
But I thought it was a little obscure and as I had read your question as "without reference to wavelength" (patterning dammit) I answered the way I did. I hope this one meets both of your requirements. BTW, I suspect that "Blue=Blue" also meets the requirements, but I did't like it as it loses information compared to my formulations...
By the way, this is derived directly from the Einstein equations and refers directly to photon Energy.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> Of Tim Rhodes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 10:48 PM
> To: Church of Virus
> Subject: Re: virus: maxims and ground rules
> I was about to to send this and then I read your next post,
> TheHermit. The
> one where you said:
> > But the point I was trying very
> > hard to make, and think I succeeded in making, is that,
> when dealing with
> > fundamental absolutes, that even if you remove the frame of
> > they either remain absolutes or become meaningless or
> acquire some new
> > meaning. They do not become "suppositions".
> So, despite the fact that I now understand that your beef is with the
> "supposition" part of it rather than the contexual side, I send on the
> following--now meaningless--text: -Prof. Tim
> TheHermit wrote:
> >Blue = 631.58THz
> Sorry, but don't bow too low--you kinda blew it again.
> Hz is an abbreviation for Hertz (first level of context, BTW)
> and is the
> measure the number of oscillations per second (another level
> of context)
> used in measuring the frequency of a waveform (again,
> necessary contextual
> information). Remember, I'd asked you to:
> >> make the same statement, with the same truth value, without a
> >> reference to waveforms or length.
> You did both. (Albeit, you did get around length by
> translating it into
> frequency--which was a cute trick I'll grant you.) But
> still, stripped of
> the context of waves and waveforms your statement is as meaningful
> and true as this one:
> "Screidlybop=twillquiap Nandu-flectoptsyies"
> So try again, my dear fliberibdy Ptandiwiquix! Only this
> time REALLY try
> and do it without referencing something else.
> (That is, if you can--it'll be a lot harder to extricate
> yourself from a
> context you're well accustomed to using than you might at
> first think. It's
> like suddenly finding yourself without air and wondering why
> its so hard to
> -Prof. Tim