Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:05:32 GMT
Message-ID: <wlwBg.36055$pu3.470112_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> Neo wrote:
>
>>>[Neo] has seized upon a number of ideas ... for some particular, unspecified task. >> >>That task has been to find the most general method of representing >>things.
>
> Answering that question is easy. The most general method of
> representing things is to use bits.
There is a more general method, which is to use sets. See formalism as a foundation of mathematics.
{} is the canonical set with zero elements and represents zero or false
{{}} is the canonical set with one element and represents one or true
{{},{{}}} is the canonical set with two elements etc.
> All that remains is the matter of filling in the details.
Indeed. One can keep filling in the details forever thinking one is making wonderful progress. That is until Goedel comes along and spoils the party by telling one that one will never reach a destination.
Some of
> the first details that should be filled in would be a specification
> of what exactly "generality" means with regards to "representing"
> "things." Until there *is* such a specification, I assert that the
> particular task you are trying to solve is unspecified.
A far more important question to ask is: What does it do? A representation is not worth much if it doesn't do much. Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 03:05:32 CEST