Talk:Actor model theory
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This is a stub for an article that is about to be written as per suggestion in the discussion page of Actor model. In the meantime please feel free to begin.
Why this article exists now[edit]
This article exists because Actor model was being vandalized by the insertion of specialized discussion that properly belongs in this article.--Carl Hewitt 20:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Gratuitous Use of Relativity[edit]
Can someone make a more serious connection to relativistic invariance or take out the references altogether? For instance, what could a(n inertial?) reference frame mean in this context beyond something metaphoric? The current article is completely inadequate to merit the use of the concept of relativistic invariance in this context. The mathematical structure presented is far too weak to infer relativistic, or many other kinds of, invariance without further explanation.
- The argument was something like the following: since the orderings are causal they must be relativistically invariant.--98.210.237.109 (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this page only purpose is to give a scientific legitimacy to the actor pattern which is creating controversy (as it seems from the discussions that has occurred in the main page). Using terms like an actor can make "local decisions" should be avoided, there is an algorithm involved and it is simply executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.55.82 (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)