Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!mimsy!frabjous!nau
From: nau@frabjous (Dana Nau)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Acting irrationally (was Re: Free Will & Self Awareness)
Message-ID: <11543@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 88 21:13:05 GMT
References: <770@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk> <1177@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <5499@venera.isi.edu> <180@proxftl.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@mimsy.UUCP
Reply-To: nau@frabjous.UUCP (Dana Nau)
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, College Pk., Md. 20742
Lines: 19

In article <180@proxftl.UUCP> tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd) writes:
>True communication can only occur when both parties understand what all
>the symbols used to communicate mean.  This doesn't mean you have to
>explicitly define what you mean by "tree" every time you use the word
>tree, but it's a good idea to define it once, especially if it's something
>more complex than "tree" (with due respect to all sentient hardwood).

There's an obvious problem with this:  since your definitions are themselves
formulated symbolically, you can't define *everything* without running into
circularities.  This is why mathematical axiomatic systems always contain
some terms that are explicitly left undefined.

As an amusing example of the problems that arise with trying to define
everything, I had a math prof about 10 years ago who pointed out that the
dictionary definition of "didapper" is "a dabchick or other small grebe."
Perhaps you all know what a dabchick or a grebe is, but none of us did.

Dana S. Nau				ARPA & CSNet:  nau@mimsy.umd.edu
Computer Sci. Dept., U. of Maryland	UUCP:  ...!{allegra,uunet}!mimsy!nau
College Park, MD 20742			Telephone:  (301) 454-7932