Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object.

On 13 jul, 17:30, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 13 jul, 06:31, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> >> Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On 12 jul, 22:43, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> >> >> Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> >That has nothing to do with the lack of proper definitions, but rather
> >> >> >with the lack of the will to communicate. If both sides are interested
> >> >> >in communicating they will establish a common domain of discourse as
> >> >> >soon as they notice that this is lacking. If both sides are not
>
> >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >> ITYM "either side is".
>
> >> >The weaker claim seemed to make my point just as well, and I wanted to
> >> >avoid a detracting discussion about whether or not there is a high
> >> >chance of succesful communication if only one is really interested.
> >> >Sometimes you just can't win. :-)
>
> >> It was a stronger claim. It takes but one weasel to confuse
> >> conmmunication. (Just try reading what some marketroids put out.)
>
> >Are you sure you are not deliberately misunderstanding me? ;-)
>
> To answer seriously (Get that emoticon out of the way!):
>
> ". . . both sides are . . ." is a stronger statement than ". . .
> either side is . . .".

That is only the premise of the claim. The claim itself is an implication, i.e., of the form "if A then B", and an implication becomes a weaker statement if the premise, "A", gets stronger. So that's why I wrote that the claim that I made is weaker than what you suggested.

> Try talking to someone who is deliberately trying to sabotage the
> communication. You are trying to communicate effectively. The other
> person is not. What is the effect on communication? Negative.

Indeed. You probably understand by now that I never disagreed with that.

• Jan Hidders