Sat Apr 12 17:27:01 2003
This shows that I'm really bad at guessing. So this time I will ask.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 14:42:27 -0700 (PDT), Brian T Rice <email@example.com>
> To rephrase: there appears to be a concept more general than both the
> collection notion and the notion of an expression term-tree, [..]
This is exactly what I didn't understand: collections regards objects in
general; terms regards syntactic objects, if you not imply their
denotations. It was a "mixing apples and orages" effect.
Thus was clear that I was missing something. From that springs the
expedient: syntactic objects -> denotations -> collection of objects via
> [..] and that this concept seems to encompass both of them.
Now, just to be sure: are you saying that we can use the word
"configuration" to refer to both collections of objects in general and
collections of syntactic objects (terms in expressions) and
relationships which hold over them?
> Since you don't quote the explanation of "configuration" earlier, I
> will assume that this is understood well enough.
Apparently is so.
> > Expressions are always relationships/constraints between objects and
> > calling some of these expressions "configurations" seems arbitrary.
> > Nothing wrong with this, but what are precisely the distinguishing
> > features of these configurations wrt other expressions?
> No, /all/ expressions are configurations when viewed as term-trees,
> not just some of them.
Ok, now is clear and /a posteriori/ absolutely consequential.
> Configurations which are /not/ term trees are merely those describing
> actual relationships between objects which have no /direct/ origin in
> the form of expressions.
Thus configurations can also deal with objects /external/ to the system
(intended as linguistic framework)? Or: objects which have no /direct/
origin in the form of expressions are objects which "enter" into the
system via interactions with the outside (I/O), right?
Better to stop here and wait your feedback.