Re: The word "symbol"

From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:30:05 +0100
Message-ID: <42fc7a2d$0$17487$ed2e19e4_at_ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>


VC wrote:
> I sincerely appreciate your effort and apologize in case you've not been
> offended by my style. ^^^

Freudian slip? :)

<snip>
> In short, my objections to the word (as used in our previous exchange)
> were:
>
> a. The definition is ambiguos. The word was used to refer to a thing
> name(1) and at the same time to internal value representation (2). The
> ambiguity alone is, or should be, lethal for something that's supposed to be
> used in a narrow and hopefully precise technical sense.

Isn't that just a reflection of the fact that, like so many other things, whether or not something is a "symbol" depends on context?

Consider the number "3". In one sense it is a "thing", a mark on paper, and not a symbol. In another sense it *is* a symbol that signifies the concept of "threeness" that is difficult to describe but is the intangible thing that 3 apples, 3 pears, 3 oranges etc. all have in common. It all depends on context.

In semiotics I think the terms used are "signifier" and "signified". See Roland Barthes' Mythologies for example - showing that each discipline uses different words for similar concepts.

> b. The word itself is redundant because there are perfectly good and
> established terms for the things we talked about, such as a constant(1) or
> a name(1) and internal data representation(2).

maybe, but sometimes it helps to use general language instead of jargon, for pedagogical purposes. Anyway, I think the choice of language is somewhat tangential to the main issue, which is whether relational engines can test values for equality purely from their "internal data representation", or whether they need to consult the type definition in order to do this.

Paul. Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 12:30:05 CEST

Original text of this message