tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080885971644496896.post8762291102712481013..comments2016-09-22T04:21:01.093-04:00Comments on The Racket Blog: Don't say "abstract" (instead say "general")Jens Axel Søgaardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15211030864341077735noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080885971644496896.post-46008537506687789222007-10-30T09:39:00.000-04:002007-10-30T09:39:00.000-04:00I know exactly what you mean when you say "five".Y...<I>I know exactly what you mean when you say "five".</I><BR/><BR/>You do? 5 might be Frege's 5 (the set of all fivesomes), or von Neumann's 5 (the set {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}, where 4 is {0, 1, 2, 3}, where 3 is {0, 1, 2}, where 2 is {0, 1}, where 1 is {0}, where 0 is {}), or some other 5 altogether.John Cowanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080885971644496896.post-40412955155013436772007-10-04T12:00:00.000-04:002007-10-04T12:00:00.000-04:00I'm not sure that "abstract" and "general" capture...I'm not sure that "abstract" and <BR/>"general" capture fungible notions.<BR/><BR/>In computer science and mathematics, abstraction captures the essential core of something. I remember hearing David Foster Wallace, who'd written a book about math, talking about how the number 5 is an abstraction over 5 sheep, 5 houses, and so on. But CS/math abstractions are very precise. I know exactly what you mean when<BR/>you say "five".<BR/><BR/>To me, the word "general" as used in common parlance connotes some amount of fuzziness. "Oh, that's the general idea." Not what you <BR/>want for computing -- unless maybe <BR/>you're Lofti Zadeh.steckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13416750891822431224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080885971644496896.post-11647947015816547742007-09-15T09:40:00.000-04:002007-09-15T09:40:00.000-04:00Makes sense to me if you want to talk with the fol...Makes sense to me if you want to talk with the folks from elsewhere that you should learn their language. If you just want to stick with your own people, then you don't bother with things like that.Robbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08402308775580442837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2080885971644496896.post-73961706054117838762007-09-15T06:24:00.000-04:002007-09-15T06:24:00.000-04:00Why would you want to adjust a valid and widesprea...Why would you want to adjust a valid and widespread usage just to integrate with usage elsewhere? If we followed this idea to its logical conclusion we would have no vocabulary at all.amoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12225759395324498055noreply@blogger.com