[r-t] Definitions so far

[Graham John]

Ander wrote:

> I think a method should be defined simply as a
> sequence of changes, not an (ill-defined)
> process for generating it.

> To do otherwise is a typical example of trying
> to create extra complexity for its own sake.

Given that it was purely an attempt to accommodate Dixon's that can make
uniqueness difficult to determine, I think you are right, Ander. Do you have
a simpler way of accommodating Dixon's and its ilk, or do we just have to
put it in the long grass for now as MBD suggests?

Graham