Re: John!!!

[P3D John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Allan writes:
>John B writes:
>> I think your so- called "single lens" system (two lenses from one)
>> works fine too, though.  888-)   888-)   888-)
 
> John!  I thought we had been over and over this.
 
Absolutely correct - we have been over and over this.  One
might say we've been harangued half to death with this.
 
> "Two lenses from one" is NOT the applicable paradigm!
> It leads you to misunderstand what's going on and to try to treat
> the SL3D as a two lens operation and make it do what 2 lens systems
> do by fussing with the design until it is neither SL3D nor 2L3D.
 
Really?  I don't think so.
 
Half a dozen people on this list have written comprehensible 
and logically tight treatises on the conventional understanding 
of SL3D.  All any of us needs or wants is a comprehensible 
treatise or proof of your and Bill's (and Bryan's) understanding 
of SL3D.  Then we'll be with you.  I have seen some treatises 
and also the patent but they have made no sense to me or to anyone 
else that I've queried.  I've even visited Bill to discuss it 
with him.  I still need something that isn't just blither to me.  
Remember geometry class?  Everything had to be proven in logical 
steps.  Maybe that would work here.  If you laid it out in that 
fashion, then if there was a step anyone didn't understand, you 
could be asked about that step.  Think that might work?  If so, 
I'd appreciate the heck out of it if you'd give it a go.  It 
certainly isn't from lack of trying or lack of desire that I 
haven't understood your viewpoint.  I've put in a tremendous 
amount of effort, as I'm sure you'll recall.
 
John B


------------------------------