On Tuesday 12 February 2008 18:29, Rob Freeman wrote:
> If you have reasons to believe there is a set of old uses for old
> terms, which suffice to all new purposes, Randall, you have only to
> present those reasons. (01)
Huh? (02)
The point is that to arbitrarily and gratuitously reinterpret
established terminological usage serves _no_ good purpose. To take but
one example: why should the programming language notion of a "variable"
be so distant from that of the variable in algebra or logic. (03)
The point is hardly that to cling to old terminology holds us back, but
rather that to coin new uses for new concepts, while retaining
established meanings for established terms, is both parsimonious _and_
maximizes the exploitation of existing expertise. (04)
Humpty Dumpty has no place in science, math and technology! (05)
Randall Schulz (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|