Re: An intuition pump

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: An intuition pump
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:48:05 -0400

[...]

> Anyway, my problem is that given my simple world view, I cannot find 
> any interesting examples where Tim's solution would make smart people 
> like Bijan and Peter so upset, yet it clearly does, which is why I 
> ask for examples that can help a simpleton like me understand what 
> the pragmatic effects are

[...]

What makes me so upset with (a strong reading of) Tim's solution is that
eliminates many fruitful kinds of disagreement.  To communicate, one has to
use common vocabulary, but Tim's solution requires that the meanings of
just about all vocabulary terms are determined, in advance, by their
owners.

To pick on a similar example to Jim's, consider the vocabulary term ``Peter
Frederick Patel-Schneider''.  (This is actually a very useful vocabulary
term as it is almost certainly the case that there is only one person in
the world with that name.  Further, I had to go through an unusual, and
probably precedent-setting, process to assert my right to have that name.
There is thus a good case to consider this and related vocabulary terms as
being owned by me.)  Under (this strong reading of) Tim's solution, the
mere mention of ``Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider'', or any of its
variants, commits an agent to my view of the term.  (See my home page for
some of the consequences.  You will probably have to view the source of the
document as a browser is otherwise unlikely to give you the full impact.)

Under (this strong reading of) Tim's solution there is no possibility of
divergence of opinion concerning anything about a vocabulary term.  Any
agent who dares to disagree will just be inconsitent.

I am not against the deliberate self-imposition of a fixed common meaning
for vocabulary terms.  Even though this is not common in human discourse,
there are many cases where a fixed common meaning is useful, in particular
when systems with very limited reasoning power are employed.  However, I am
against the simple use of a vocabulary term committing one to a fixed
common meaning, and much in favour of an explicit mechanism (e.g., imports)
for this commitment.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 10:22:14 UTC