Re: The word "symbol"

David Cressey wrote:
> "VC" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cKudnV6zN63wfmLfRVn-ow_at_comcast.com...
> >
>
> > If you say that "David" is a symbol for a person's name, then, in order
> to
> > be consistent, you ought to say that "1234" is a symbol for the number's
> > name, although I do not think that in the context of formal systems such
> > locutions are productive at all. Instead, it's much easier and clearer
> to
> > say that "David" is a person's name and "1234" is a constant (a number's
> > name).
> >
>
> Actually, "1234" is a symbol for the number's name. The number has a name
> in the decimal place value notation system,
> and the character string "1234" is a symbol for that name.

As I said before, one *can* speak this way but I do not see how speaking this way can be productive/useful/helpful in the context of database modelling.

>
> There is a number that has the same name, (symbolized by "1234") in the
> hexadecimal place value system, but it isn't the same number. The number
> 1234 (Hex) is the same as the number 4660 (Dec) if I'm using my calculator
> right.

No, the names are, in fact, different. The ambiguity issue is resolved by applying the default context which is the decimal base. Should one want to use multiple bases in a formal discourse, one would be prudent to employ unambigous notation: "10(Decimal)", "A(Hex)".

In the natural language, the name "John" is actually context."John". If the context itself is ambiguous, one can easily resolve the problem by making the context more specific: giving person's last name, John's location at the table, etc. Received on Mon Aug 15 2005 - 16:02:52 CEST