Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Since 0.02 is being thrown around ... I'll give it a stab ... Wouldn't an abstract description be a definition that permits you to perform *deduction* in order to derive further "solutions"? In contrast, a generic description is simply a way to describe a certain class of items without an inherent mechanism to logically introduce new elements into that class? (ie. no deduction can be formed based on the generic description) K On 2/2/2009 3:43 PM, Peter Hunsberger wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Cox, Bruce <Bruce.Cox@u...> wrote: >> Another try, after reading some entries in the OED >> >> Generic: General as opposed to specific; aspirin as opposed to Bayer; >> >> Abstract: Abstract as opposed to concrete; (a*a) + (b*b) = (c*c) "a squared >> plus b squared equals c squared" as opposed to 3*3 + 4*4 = 5*5 >> >> An abstraction might or might not be discovered by inspection of some >> instances, but an abstraction has an internal truth that is completely >> independent of whether it is ever instantiated. However, aspirin is a name >> for a collection of instances (with a common property) that has no existence >> without those instances. > > Sounds like a nice distinction on the surface, but just to continue to > play devils advocate for the moment; can you give me an example of an > abstraction that would make sense without some concrete instance > existing for reference purposes? I'm pretty skeptical that any such > pure, "unattached" abstraction -- which would be the ultimate > extension of your proposition -- is possible.... >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
