Jim Kelley wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
You are implying that any dictionary definition (hence
not your unique Alice in Wonderland definition) is
correct in any context.
I'm not implying that at all. I'm simply saying that
the terms and definitions I used are correct in the
context in which I used them.
The were easily demonstrated as *not* correct in the
context used, and your whole discussion since has been
to argue the implication as stated above.
Do you read what you write?
Lets review it:
Here are some valid standard defintions:
"quantize - to subdivide into small but
measurable increments."
(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)
Your source is for common English, it is not defining
the Terms of Art used in technical discussions.
It perfectly defines the term as I use it.
Yes. And in a technical discussion, you are off in Alice's
Wonderland.
This
*is* a discussion about those terms of art, not about
common English word usages. To whatever degree your
cited definition differs from the standard definitions
I've cited, you are wrong because of the context.
I don't use the term the way your reference defines it.
But nobody else, unless they are also in Wonderland,
knows what you mean if you don't use standard definitions.
And in a *technical* discussion, that means the technical
term of art, not the common English term.
....
Obviously the Term of Art used in technical discussion
does indeed mean there *must* be a value assigned. In
fact it makes no sense at all unless that step is
included.
It seems there are a great many things that don't make
sense to you.
Why people want to make absurd claims about terminology
is one of them. Maybe you can explain that...
If a "term of art" were to be defined in
such a way that it contradicts the definition for the
exact same term as it is published in Websters
dictionary, I would be inclined to disregard it.
It isn't a contradiction. The term of art is usually a
stricter definition. It is certainly going to be more
rigorous.
Regardless, to ignore it is abject foolishness. Can you
imagine a lawyer in court ignoring all of the term of
art definitions in favor of the standard common English
dictionary definitions? The other side would be
ecstatic... and the judge would probably throw the
lawyer out the door!
If you don't want to use the technical terminology, why
not just step out the door and avoid all technical
discussions? You won't make sense, it it does become
annoying.
As you can see, knowing how to use a dictionary is
vitally important...
Perhaps almost as important as realizing at which side
of the analog to digital convertor you're looking.
Exactly. Now, if you don't want to use terms in a what
that will be understood, how can you even tell which
side is which?
You'll end up making grossly trivial errors the way
Jerry Arvins and a couple of others here do...
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)