Re: It don't mean a thing ...

Brian Inglis wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>>Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>mAsterdam wrote:
>>>><quote>
>>>>        Data on its own has no meaning, only
>>>>        when interpreted by some kind of data
>>>>        processing system does it take on
>>>>        meaning and become information.
>>>></quote>
>>>ISTM it's just the very old statement that a string of bits or bytes
>>>by itself has no semantic content, but it gains semantics when it is
>>>interpreted as a type: characters, an integer, or an FP number. 
>>
>>(Type as 'valid set of values' - please correct me
>>if you use another definition) The only semantics
>>it gains by being interpreted as a type is
>>being member of a set.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms)

The Peano axioms define natural numbers
by means of the 'successor' operator.
But, say, addition - while surely possible on natural numbers does not define them.

Using type in the 'valid set of values' way: Some operators (help) define a type, other operators, though possible do not. I would think
that all the possible operators would be part of the class definition, not the type.

The defining operators affect meaning,
the others, though they do affect use,
do not affect meaning.

[snip]

> data has no meaning at the machine bits, bytes, words level;
> data gains meaning at higher levels of abstraction, as it gains
> tighter and tighter definitions of type.
Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 12:01:59 CEST