Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:55:42 +0200
Message-ID: <cliluh$ccs$1_at_news.net.uni-c.dk>
"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> ...
> "Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es>...>
> A little while ago, when I asked about "correct" definitions, Marshall
> suggested that there is no such thing as "correct" with regard to a
> definition. Do you agree with Marshall's comment? I'm not asking about
my
> paraphrase of it here.
>
> Can you tell me what you mean by "properly"? It is the same as or
different
> from "Correctly"? "Usefully"?
I would say:
(1) a definition is neither true or false, correct or incorrect
(2) a restatement of a definition might be correct or incorrect, in the
"obvious" way
(3) there could be more than one definition of the same _word_ (as: normal),
and they could well be inconsistent.
Thus, we have to be careful not to give the same words different meanings within one context, ie: databases.theory. So let's agree upon one definition ... Who'll be/should be the judge :-) Received on Mon Oct 25 2004 - 12:55:42 CEST