On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> postmortem arguments: i believe the word "ambiguous" is ambiguous. it
> could mean "having multiple interpretations, all objectively
> possible", which would mean my identity is not ambiguous, or "having
> multiple interpretations, all subjectively possible (that is, not
> actually known to be wrong)", which would mean my identity is
> ambiguous. the second meaning of "ambiguous" is essentially the same
> as "unknown".
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > For a message to be "unambiguous", it cannot depend on information
> > unavailable ("unknown") to an intended recipient. After all, the
> > intended content of any communication is generally known in the mind of
> > the sender: to say a communication is "clear but unknown to the
> > recipient" robs the term "ambiguous" of any meaning. Any distinction
> > between unknown and unclear was rejected when Agora first opined on
> > AGAINT.
>
> g. is judging that the second meaning of "ambiguous" is the relevant one.
Sure. CFJ1460 firmly rejected the objective interpretation (e.g. "number
of counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis").
