[cap-talk] "Composite", was "Same" key

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 16:23 +0000, David Hopwood wrote:
> Charles Landau wrote:
> > That is exactly why there should be a term for "a set of one or more 
> > related atomic objects".
> 
> Yes: "abstraction". But Jonathan claims that is too general. So, unless
> someone wants to propose another alternative, we have only the following
> choices:
> 
>  - use "composite", and accept that the special case of a single object is
>    not motivated by the everyday meaning and will have to be learnt.
> 
>  - use "abstraction", and accept that it is a more general word than we'd like.
> 
>  - use "object", and accept that this is inconsistent with the majority of
>    current and historical usage in object-based systems, going back to 1965.
> 
> To me, consistency of terms within a given technical field trumps consistency
> with everyday meanings, every time.

I've been following this discussion but can't remember seeing anything
about object meaning >=1 atomic objects being inconsistent with
historical and current usage in object-based systems. Sorry if I'm
asking for evidence that has already been presented, but could you give
some examples?


> > My dictionary says a "composite" is "a thing made up of several 
> > parts". I'm sorry, "composite" just doesn't work for "one or more 
> > parts". You really seem to be following Lewis Carroll here: `When I 
> > use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means 
> > just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
> 
> Carroll wasn't making such a simplistic point as to say that technical
> definitions should always match everyday usage. He was a mathematician,
> and knew very well that some arbitrariness in terms is unavoidable. The
> knowing self-criticism of precisely the kind of formalism that he would
> have practiced as a mathematician is half the joke of that story (and others
> in "Through the Looking Glass" -- my favourite is the song about sitting
> on a gate).

For whatever it's worth, I tend to believe that if any term seems out of
place to people on this list who are much more knowledgeable about the
object-cap model than an outsider, it will certainly trip up an
outsider. Thus composite seems like one of those ones that would trick a
lot of newcomers to the model.

> Terms should be, as far as possible, *motivated* by common usage in order
> to be easier to learn; that doesn't mean that there won't be special cases
> that are less well-motivated. In this particular case, as in many others,
> we cannot choose a set of terms that are entirely free of flaws; we have
> to pick the one with the fewest or least important flaws.
> 

Well put. The trouble might be on deciding which flaws are more (or
less) important than others. The goal (and hence, the audience for these
terms) should be clear, or else we're doomed to continue arguing in
circles.