Re: The word "symbol"
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:46:54 +0200
Message-ID: <42fd50e3$0$11068$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
VC wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>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.
> > > What's that supposed to mean ? >
Your interest in databases is in the purely formal aspects, no? That is one, but not my main area of nice topics in database theory. Is that so difficult?
>>[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.
>>
>>Semiotics is not applied to the study of formal systems
>>per se but it does give handles to provide content,
>>context, meaning and use of formal systems.
> > > For example ?
Why? Any example would by definiton be
outside what you choose to be database theory.
Received on Sat Aug 13 2005 - 03:46:54 CEST