Re: On Formal IS-A definition

On May 10, 12:24 pm, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On May 10, 5:21 pm, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Regardless of how I try to define a set of variables, it seems I can
> > only define a set of values and interpret it variably.  I find Bob's
> > reference to Clinton more significant now than at first.  I suspect
> > that asserting what a variable, a set, or anything else 'is' defers
> > the interpretation and representation of the concept.
>
> I don't see any reason to interpret values (and that includes language-
> symbol-values) as anything other than themselves.  One should use
> explicit functions to map values to other values as one requires.
> E.g. don't pretend a tuple with attributes cx,cy,r is a circle.
> Instead use a function to give it that semantic.  E.g.
> circle(point(0,0),1).
>
> Interpreting a value as a variable or vice versa is only good for
> creating confusion.  It is noteworthy that no function can map a value
> to a variable or vice versa because functions only map values to
> values.

Instead of 'interpret it variably', perhaps I should have said 'evaluate different mappings as required'. Despite my poor representation of my thoughts, I agree and believe I understand. Received on Mon May 10 2010 - 13:14:12 CEST