WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > If you want to say
> > that {lo vo plise} has four referents, then
> you
> > owe us an explanation (a real definition) of
> just
> > how that works.
>
> I don't think any further explanation I may
> give would ever
> satisfy you.

It occurs to me that, rather than being a seemly
-- albeit misplaced — display of modesty, this
is a claim that I set unreasonably high standards
for explanations and definitions. I, of course,
don't think I do; what I want is about what I
expect from first semester logic students, who
usually mange to do pretty well at meeting the
guidelines. To spell it out (with modifications
to apply to the present situation):

accuracy: saying clearly what is actually going
on. If, as now, you are proposing changes
(either new or precising previous vagueness or
ambiguity) a clear statemtn of what the change is
and some explanation of why a change is necessary
and why this particular change is the way to go
("widespread usage" is not much help unless it
also says why the users have chosen this deviance
-- especially true when the usage is largely that
of the proposer). But problems which do need to
be met count for something.

clarity: at least avoiding vagueness and
ambiguity, being as precise as possible and
appropriate. An unemotional expression is often
useful as well.

noncontroversial: if a change presupposes some
other changes, they should be dealt with as well,
so that each section begins pretty much from the
basics (CLL in this case).

coherence: the various parts should fit together
without internal contradiction or garden-pathing.

completeness: all the major aspects of the
problem at issue are covered, reader
extrapolation is kept to a minimum.

Objectively, the major proposal so far, for
gadri, seems deficient in all of these respects
except possibly the last — which is mitigated by
the problems in other areas. But meeting these
criteria does not seem to be too much to expect
in a serious proposal in a serious project.