Hi, Dave,
Thanks so very much for answering. Everybody else seems to be lost to me in the election. There is something that puzzling about your answer. The example you used as an example against my usage seems (to me) to confirm it! Such is my confusion. heyYouDoThis (usingX, usingY). In the language I proposed, this expression would be rendered as [Relation1([Relation2][Argument1][Relation3][Argument2]) or something like that. In other words, I see you as using “argument” exactly as I meant it. While still confused, tho, I like your solution to my problem. However my FRIAM colleagues my react to my usage, Philosophers are going to HATE it. Thanks again, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 7:30 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Please I need help with a technical term Nick, one of the computer scientists can answer more definitively, but your use of argument in the passage is inconsistent with the everyday programming usage. Good programs are modularized with specific computational abilities isolated within discrete modules. Frequently, one part of the program requires that computation in another module be performed before I can proceed with my own work. So I must sent a message (execute a function call) to that other module: e.g. heyYouDoThis. Sometimes I possess information that the receiver of my message (function call) does not, but does need before it can do its thing. In that case I send the request and include the additional information as "argument(s). e.g. heyYouDoThis (usingX, usingY). "Arguments in this sense have nothing to do with the structure of the expression itself. It might sound redundant, but I think you should simply use 'Term', e.g. [Term1][relation][Term2][Relation2]Term3] and replace the word 'term' in the prose with 'part' or 'element', i.e. segment or piece. davew On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, at 11:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: Hi, all, I am writing a piece for some philosophers – remember I have No training in philosophy – on how to express Peirce’s sign relation, which, is roughly, “S. is a sign to I., of O.” Somehow, in the last several years, I have been infected by you guys with the word, “arguments”. I have found it very convenient to use it to refer to terms you fill into an empty expression to fill it up, so it computes. So below is a short passage. If you can manage to read the passage, I will have two questions: 1. Have I used the term correctly; and 2. Is there a substitute for it. After all, if I could avoid demanding that philosophical readers change their definitions of “argument”, I would probably make things easier for myself. The passage follows: Nick wants to know, What is the form of proper expressions of the sign relation? He understands that minimally a sign statement is a five term expression of the form. [Argument1][relation1][Argument2][Relation2]Argument3]; or, for short A1R1A2R2A3 Here the term “argument” is used in a sense familiar to computer scientists: to refer to a term that must be supplied to complete a well-formed expression of a particular kind. Three-termed expressions are familiar in every-day life. “Danny does hit the ball” is an example of another three-termed expression, one we call a transitive sentence. To complete a well-formed transitive sentence we must supply a subject, an action verb, and an object and the subject must act on the object in accordance with the verb. The General form of such an expression is thus: [A1=Subject][R1=does][A2=Verb] [R2:to] [A3:Object] There are rules about what sorts of values can be supplied for each of the arguments which any English speaker will know and will violate only for rhetorical purposes. “Ball does hit Danny to“ is not a well formed English sentence, whatever a transformational Grammarian might contrive to make of it. . So to Nick’s question: we have to understand what three arguments and two relations are required to write a well-formed expression of the sign relation. This means we have to supply rules (analogous to the rules that we just supplied for a transitive sentence) for what sort of conceptions can properly fill the role of each of the arguments and what sorts of relations the sign relation itself entails. Thanks, everybody (or anybody). There is a special place in heaven reserved for those who help colleagues write. Remember, the issue is not whether what I say about the sing relation is true, but rather, have I used the term argument correctly and is it necessary for me to use it – i.e., do you have one that is just as good for the purpose. Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
