Re: The word "symbol"

David Cressey wrote:
> "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.

I apologize for my poor typing skills as well ;)

>
> 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.

Probably the ancients used it because they did not know any better :)

>
> 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".

When we confine ourselves to the realm of formal structures of which database theory is an example, then we have just *two* basic notions in order to discuss various things: the things themselves and the their names. Collection of things, as well as relations between things, are normally formalized as sets. The thing names are: variables, connectives, constants, predicate/function/relation symbols. I just do not see where the standalone "symbol" fits in here.

>
> 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.

Semiotics has quite a few non-intersecting branches depending on the semiotician you talk to ;). Some claim it studies the interaction between the "signifier" (name) and the "signified" (entity) and that the "signified" can be influenced by the "signifier". Others say that "signs" (or "symbols" where "symbol" is a synonym of "sign") as "signifiers" have meanings of their own unrelated, or weakly related, to that of the "signified". One of the more interesting semioticians is the writer Umberto Eco who used some semiotics ideas in his books (e.g., Foucault's Pendulum). However, I do not see how this stuff can be applicable to study of formal systems, like the RM.

>
> 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.
>
> a. If symbols are NOT used to express data, then what IS used?

As I said, quite a few times before, *names* (constants, variables, etc.) are used for this purpose.

> b. I think the authors' point was that tangible things are more accessible
> to analysis than ideas.

OK, sort of trivial if true. So you're saying the authors equate symbols with all the physical things out there, like trees, stones, houses, are you ? Or by a symbol they mean some not very well defined subset of physical things like a pictogram, a cuneiform, a printed word, something that semioticians call a "sign" ? How do they propose to study say a printed word by itself ? Also, how such study might be related to a data bases theory ?

> c. example: two holes in two pieces of card stock each represent a vote
> for Al Gore in Florida.

You mean two holes in two cards represnt *two* votes ? If not, could you clarify what you mean ?

Cheers. Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 17:36:37 CEST