| |||||||||||||
A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part OneA comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part OnePosted Aug 25, 2006 12:16 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)In reply to: A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part One by johnkarp Parent article: A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part One "Orthogonal" means "at right angles", or "without overlap", as in "the scalar product of two orthogonal vectors is zero". So I don't think the usage here is wrong. I'd interpret it figuratively as saying that you can't completely achieve both aims at the same time.
(Log in to post comments)
A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part One Posted Aug 27, 2006 16:46 UTC (Sun) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link] Except that's not what it means. If two goals are orthogonal, they are not influenced or dependent on one another. They're mutually exclusive. If they aren't, they are synergistic.Orthogonality is a system design property which enables the making of complex designs feasible and compact. The aim of an orthogonal design is to guarantee that operations within one of its components neither create nor propagate side-effects to other components. For example a car has orthogonal components and controls, e.g. accelerating the vehicle does not influence anything else but the components involved in the acceleration. On the other hand, a car with non-orthogonal design might have, for example, the acceleration influencing the radio tuning or the display of time. Consequently, this usage is seen to be derived from the use of orthogonal in mathematics; one may project a vector onto a subspace by projecting it onto each member of a set of basis vectors separately and adding the projections if and only if the basis vectors are mutually orthogonal. (wikipedia)
|
|||||||||||||