Re: The word "symbol"

"VC" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:wr2dnQNiDv01YWbfRVn-iQ_at_comcast.com...
> Hi,
>
> I sincerely appreciate your effort and apologize in case you've not been
> offended by my style.

Assuming there was a typo in the above, apology accepted.

All I'm trying to show in this discussion is that the word "symbol" is NOT my own peculiar addition to the language of the study of data. The idea that the data inside a computer is expressed in symbols may be novel to you, but it hasn't been a new revelation to me since about 1962.

That doesn't mean that "symbol" is the silver bullet for the "theory of everything". It just means that it's an accepted concept that has real meaning to some people in our field. And its meaning is not subsumed by the word "value".

However, the entire chapter 1 of the book is devoted to the relationship between symbols and meaning. I keep seeing the word "semiotics" used in here, and that word is novel to me. It's not clear to me just what semiotics is, but I suspect that the relationship between symbols and meaning is pretty close to it.

I can't to justice to Chapter 1 of the book in here.

> I honestly do not understand :
> a. what is meant by "symbols can be used to express data"
> b. how "symbols are more accessible to analysis than ideas"
> c. what is meant by "two physical thimgs are the same symbol"

Let me give you my take on the above, rather than the book's.

1. If symbols are NOT used to express data, then what IS used?
2. I think the authors' point was that tangible things are more accessible to analysis than ideas.
3. example: two holes in two pieces of card stock each represent a vote for Al Gore in Florida.