zz,tx: Surplus meaning & anthills (was: Re: FURTHER Clarif. re inside/contents

[Ted Nelson <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mark-Jason--

With respect to my mislabelled diagram (below), you said--

>If c is linked to d, that should express something different from c not
>linked to d.  But you are saying that regardless of whether or not the
>link is there ZZ will treat it the same way, as if there was no link.
>Why should it do that?  If the user makes a link, it's not because
>they want ZZ to ignore it.
>
>If ZZ does that, it is taking the power of expression from the user by
>assigning the same meaning to the presence and absence of a link.
>(``Sorry, you are no longer allowed to use the word `red'.'')

In T.H. White's Once and Future King, the motto of the Anthill
 was "WHATEVER IS NOT COMPULSORY IS FORBIDDEN"
 (or maybe it was vice versa).

This is the approach of various programming-lanaguage designers
 who wish to eliminate the possible expression of things which
 they don't like.

The philosophy in ZigZag is more Perl-like:
 "Whatever is not central to the semantics is your own business."

For instance, with regard to the example given:
 the user may *want* these successive contents-lists linked
 in d.2, so they can be o'ercrept by some crawler mechanism
 without having to go up a level, over and down, etc.

I don't feel like quarreling with that.  The rule that the next
 negward connection on d.inside quite settles the problem.
 (Did you see the the scrawly pictures I enclosed as JPEGs
 on this subject the other night?)

This is quite like the Logical Postivist drive in the 1930s (?)
 to eliminate "surplus meaning"-- e.g., "This sentence means
 only that the dog RESPONDED in a certain way, you are
 not allowed to infer that it had any feelings ..."

Best. T


At 10:52 AM 10/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> >> The expected structures is: 
>> >> d.contents \/   d.inside =>  ("|" here means "no connection)
>> >>  A a
>> >>    b
>> >>    c
>> >>  B d
>> >>    e
>> >>    f
>> >> 
>> >> where for some reason (probably visual convenience in
>> >>  some context), A *might* be connected to B, abd c to d,
>> >>  but those connections have no system-supported connection.
>> >
>> >Maybe I misunderstand your illustration, but if c and d are connected,
>> >won't the system interpret d, e, and f as part of the contents of A?
>> 
>> Thought I said it Implicitly !-)  Answer is that the system
>>  *must stop* thinking the further items posward on d.contents
>>  are on the list *when it encounters the countervailing B*.
>
>The vertical direction here is `d.contents'.  If the user doesn't want
>d to be part of the contents of A, the answer is simple: Don't link c
>to d.
>
>If c is linked to d, that should express something different from c not
>linked to d.  But you are saying that regardless of whether or not the
>link is there ZZ will treat it the same way, as if there was no link.
>Why should it do that?  If the user makes a link, it's not because
>they want ZZ to ignore it.
>
>If ZZ does that, it is taking the power of expression from the user by
>assigning the same meaning to the presence and absence of a link.
>(``Sorry, you are no longer allowed to use the word `red'.'')
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Theodor Holm Nelson, Visiting Professor of Environmental Information
 Keio University, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Fujisawa, Japan
 Home Fax from USA: 011-81-466-46-7368  (If in Japan, 0466-46-7368)
Professorial home page http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/ 
_____________________________________________________
Permanent: Project Xanadu, 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965
 Tel. 415/ 331-4422, fax 415/332-0136  
http://www.xanadu.net
PERMANENT E-MAIL: ted@xxxxxxxxxx
_____________________________________________________
Quotation of the day, 98.10.29:
Last words of Oscar Wilde: "Either that wallpaper goes, or I do."