Re: they mention various metaphors and ramble about various concerns (Re: Kuratowski Ordered Pair)

On Dec 22, 6:52 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 22, 5:52 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:49 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

With this syntax, what does

a+b=b+a

evaluate to? True? False? The name of a Swedish music
sensation ("abba"?) Is * associative? Does * distribute
over +?

Or is it the case that the answers depend on the semantics,
independent of the syntax?

the semantics must represent the syntax
it must provide an interpretation

Sure. Isn't that obvious? Isn't that pretty much what
it means to call x the semantics for syntax y?

How come you didn't answer any of my questions?
How come you never answer any of my questions?
How come you ignore pretty much everything I say
pretty much every time and instead just try to find gaps
in my education? Sure, I don't know everything. Neither
do you. Certainly each of us knows some things the
other doesn't.

You got a point to make, make it.

john stuart bell once wrote to a researcher
that he had reviewed his new paper and enjoyed it
but had some questions in the process

but
he said
he wanted to ensure the researcher did not feel pressure to respond
as he felt it was an utmost human freedom to not provide answers

i participate when i enjoy to
and do other things when i desire

but let me answer some of your other pressing questions:

- i had not answered other questions
because you have fallen into microscope mode

this is where someone cuts up a post
and tries to find fault with small little fragments
completely missing the point of the entire message

this is a trait of argumentative personalities
and it is usually a sign that things will drag on
without ever getting anywhere useful

you attacked some of my usage
of the syntax-semantics relationship
first claiming that no such relation existed
and then following that the relation was "obvious"

it turns out
you don't really even know the formal theory relating them
and completely missed my mention
that there is a well defined relationship
the galois adjoint

you might also not be aware
that this same functorial relationship
is the operational closure that i referred to
in more lay terms
which you questioned

- no i didn't know her
i do not live in the bay area
but i know some in the vegas scene like her

- i do like ginsberg
cf. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/225d0bad2396276a
but he wouldn't be my favorite

others i deeply enjoy include eve libertine
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/0ed794139044f9b8
and clayton eshleman
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/024bbe0ba5f5deb8

but sticking with my well-confirmed npd
my favorite poet would have to be me
some of my more favorite might be:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/89144de77fac9551
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/753de690bd2dba93
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/736624760704e784
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/1dca25614ca9a866
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/c8c78a6a9ba92aa6
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.poems/msg/29ca968e7bfe1375

- i wasn't referring directly to piaget's own study
there is now a well established field
working to combine research on neurodynamical development
modular architectonics
and cognitive studies
that has made very important foundational research
some of which i referred to

- oh
and parsimony is much more than an aesthetic principle
it is also a principle of efficiency
which is an engineering principle
and it directly constrains the syntax-semantics relations
through complexity theoretic measures

it is not simply like my love of preraphaelites

if that interpretation is formalised
providing mathematical structures
that obey a given syntax
then we have model theory
and a rigorous formal theory of semantics

one syntax may have many different semantics
but it is not in any way free or independent

And one semantics may have many different syntaxes.
And yet you don't see any independence whatsoever.

no

i see a well defined
and well studied
mathematical relationship

galois adjunction is not independence
it describes important conditions on both directions

*One* way that there is independence is that a question
such as whether some operator is commutative or
associative or not is not informed by the syntax. Whoops!
that's a mistake, talking about the actual subject matter.
You won't respond; you might not even read it for all
I know. Big waste of finger time, trying to make a point
with you.

i do tend to skip responding to the things
where your lack of understanding in a topic
means i will likely not get much of value

if you want to raise the level of discussion
use terms like "semantic entailment"
and use them properly
and maybe i'll think you have something to offer me

you can waste time trying to make a point with me
but your point seems very much like someone chastising
"you know 2+2=4 doncha?"
to a point on arithmetic decidability

i really cannot see any point you might be trying to make here
in response to some position of mine

it seems more like that magnification again
where you seem to think i have some confusion
on the syntax semantics relationship

i am sorry you do not know the theory
on the relation between syntax and semantics
but your desire to tell others they are wrong
is telling

Yes, yes, me and my character flaws again. Maybe
you could go post about this in alt.marshall.spight.sucks
or something. You could be the moderator! You could
be the founding member. Fame and a lucrative modeling
career await you.

However, I'm not exactly stinging on being told off
from someone who can't figure out an unordered pair.

i am sorry you have not shown
any reasonable familiarity with foundations
but feel it necessary to tell others off

God, you are great at rhetoric; I have to hand it to you.
All you have to do is find a book you've read the
other guy hasn't and that invalidates everything the
other guy knows, or says. Works really well because
you've read a lot of books. Looks very flashy, throwing
around all those famous names and all. (But I notice you
dropped the Piaget angle the second it was clear
I knew who you were talking about.)

strange
i used that same argument recently

i must be good at rhetoric
if even _you_ are emulating me!

funny though
how you think i'm discussing piaget
when i'm discussing modern research
(kind of like your archaic understanding of syntax-semantics
accusing me of errors
that only highlight your lack of understanding)

i won't toss out names though
(i'd hate to abuse that rhetorical trick)
even though i've written about the field quite a bit in the past

and i'm not about to drop that angle
since the scientific research on concept formation
has always seemed to me one of the most important sources
of foundational research in mathematics
(which has always been a constructivist position)

You suck at actual debate, though. You have to address
the points the other guy is making if you want to have
any substance. You might get away with ignoring his points
once or twice, but over and over again and it's pretty clear
all you want to do is pick apart the other guy's personality.

you are absolutely right
i suck at actual debate

i make many points in my posts
but i make them in a way that others always tend to miss
instead deciding to focus on fragments they think they can tackle
as if some kind of winning
is more important than understanding

and of course
because i am too broken to communicate properly
with capitals and periods and such
i never communicate convincingly
and opinions afterward are never changed from prior

i tend to blame my lacks
on the lacks of others
reinforcing my sense of alienation
while satiating my narcissism

understand this:
i thought i understood all the points you made
and i did not see much of substance in response
instead seeing much misunderstandings of the field
propelled only by a desire for argumentation

i am sorry you have demonstrated to me
nothing of any substance in the discussion

If you just go by what of mine has been quoted and
responded to in your posts, then yeah, I haven't said
crap. However if you go by what you've snipped, then
you have about 15 pending questions to answer.

most of the discussion on pairs broke down
because my statements were poorly interpreted
mostly due to a lack of understanding of the field

you asked a bunch of mostly unrelated questions
some of which i answered above

but i'm not someone's bitch
who has to respond to questions just because they are asked

it probably is me

the world looks so different to me these days

i see agitprop on all sides

when my perception changes like this
i have to understand the world isn't changing
just my perception

Hello? Hello? I'm over here. We were talking about
pairs, remember? Ordered and unordered collections?

it must be getting time for another of my wars

Ominous and unexplained. Another good rhetorical
technique of yours.

thank you

i may use it more often then
to hide my lack of substance

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ask an atheist a question
    ... Do you have examples of one part of the brain ... formalism for understanding "conscious agents", ... use it to arrive at the conclusion that you can't get semantics ... I'm guessing that 'that' you're referring to is 'syntax is equivalent ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: man page syntax for +script
    ... The man pages for [bind] and [comm hook] both describe how you can either replace the current script or append to it, but they give slightly different syntaxes. ... But the syntax for makes it appear that the + and the script are separate arguments, and that caused me some confusion. ... you have a distorted view of what is syntax and what is semantics in Tcl. ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: man page syntax for +script
    ... The man pages for and both describe how you can either replace the current script or append to it, but they give slightly different syntaxes. ... But the syntax for makes it appear that the + and the script are separate arguments, and that caused me some confusion. ... The plus is a semantic definition that these two unrelated commands put on their last argument, expr has a very different semantic definition of "+". ... you have a distorted view of what is syntax and what is semantics in Tcl. ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: MV Keys
    ... In *practise*, you may not need to worry ... Through creative use of syntax, ... I don't envision a separate language; ... even within the given semantics. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: What is a null pointer constant?
    ... > understanding, the only difference between the following three C ... > statements is syntax; they all possess exactly the same required ... > semantics - because they're required to produce the same exact effects: ...
    (comp.std.c)