Re: custom vs. derivative (Re: packages.gz corrupt, missing packages and other issues)
n Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
Well, I definition can not be right or wrong.
s/, I /, a /
Neither the world nor definitions are black and white. Definitions might be
right or wrong in physics (I doubt it already there...), but certainly in
social sciences definitions can also be very inaccurrate or more accurate.
Well, it might be that a definition is inaccurrate or accurate but it is a
feature of a definition in any field that they can neither right or wrong.
As we'd suggested in Merida: Please read WikiPedia: Definition. It is a
nice reading. What we in the past definitely failed here is "Intersubjectivity"
(well, I think the German article here explains the problem better).
A statement based on a definiion has the features true or false.
Wrong. :-D
Wrong. :-P
For the purpose of finding a new name and definition, please stop refering to
the old one. Write something down (you can very easily do this by
using "cp"), call this "your new definition" and then lets discuss this -
though I would definitly suggest and prefer if you could change some terms
after copying from the old text :-)
I did here
http://wiki.debian.org/CDDNamingProposals [1]
without copying anything. The definition of a <term> works like this
<term> is a <generic term> that <features that explain the specifics
of the <term> which distincts it from other things inside the
group of <generic term> >
At the URL [1] I started with specifying these features. I think a proper
<generic term> for "thingy 1" is "a part of Debian" and thus I turned "thingy 1"
into what might be a begin of a definition.
Then you can explain what *you* mean by this *new* definition.
Well, I tried to give a kick start of a definition. But definitions are
no property of *me* or *you* or anybody else. A definition has to be
accepted by everybody who is involved in the discussion to make sure
that intersubjectivity is warranted. I guess you remember your defintion
of a "full glas". If somebody just defines:
"Red is a color that is displayed by RGB 0x00FF00." (A)
it is different from the term we use in real life. But this is a pure
definition which could have some use in a circle of people who are discussing
specific things if *all* of them accept this definition. It stops working
if somebody of this circle defines something else:
"Red is a color that is displayed by RGB 0x0000FF." (B)
This is also different form the usual perception of the color red but
it just contradicts definition (A) and thus no discussion is possible
if some participiants of the discussion use definition (A) and others
use (B). So defining something is not about an opinion of somebody but
a common agreement between a group of people who are dealing with a
specific issue.
And we can
point out ambigitious and other improvements so that this new definition
becomes as clear as possible.
Sure. Just go for it and enhance [1]!
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: