Re: The word "symbol"
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:02:46 +0200
Message-ID: <42fd4694$0$11066$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
vc wrote:
> David Cressey wrote:
>>VC wrote:
[snip]
> When we confine ourselves to the realm of formal structures of which
> database theory is an example, ...
Ah! This creates perspective. I do not share this opinion. To me there is a part of database theory that deals with formal structures.
[snip]
> 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.