Re: The word "symbol"

"Paul" <paul_at_test.com> wrote in message news: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? :)

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

> 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.

That's, sort of, why I started a new discussion. The main issue in the other discussion is what you said.

The main issue in this discussion is whether the concept of "symbol" is a valuable addition to the jargon of data theory or not.

To me it definitely is. Not only the "internal representation of data", as in the ones and zeroes, or other data structures built up from them, but also the external representation of data. The number three is made up of symbols (binary digits) in side memory. It's also made up of symbols (pixels) when displayed on the screen, according to some font. It's also made up of symbols (dots) when printed by a laser printer.

In addition, "3" is a symbol, at another layer of expression. It's a decimal digit.
In addition the number "12345" , written in the box labelled "Employee_id" on a form is a symbol, standing not only for a certain decimal number, but also standing for a certain employee.

And this is probably the root difference between the way VC sees things and the way I see things.

VC, if I read him right, views everything at two levels of abstraction: the logical level and the physical level.

I think that there are multiple levels of abstraction. I'm not even going to guess how many. And in order to know what a piece of data expresses, you have to know not only the context, as VC said, but also the level of abstraction.

The word "symbol" has a consistent meaning, I think, across multiple levels of abstraction. VC claims my use is inconsistent. It remains to be seen where the discussion goes from here. Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 13:25:38 CEST