terminological obscurity

[Arthur]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:39:51 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis"
<martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:

>Arthur wrote:
>> But then nothing can be determined about the hetergenousity or the
>> homogenousity of any particular context for this data  by reference to
>> the data itself.
>> 
>> Though the reverse is not true.
>> 
>> In the conversation I am having this is a significant point.
>> 
>> But I suspect we are not having the same conversation.
>
>I'm uncertain. I would see a significant point if you would
>admit that "a list is for homogenous data" is not a tautology.

I am not unwilling to make the admission, but I need some help. 

Becasue I am not unwilling to see a list as an homogenous context. But
by placing data within that context we have done nothing to change the
nature of the data.  If the data was ambiguous, it is still ambiguous.

The purpose of the list is a perspective on the data. From that
perspective we view an homogenous aspect of it. 

Does that do?

But if something about type is in the end at the bottom of your view,
than  I am still a bit lost, I am afraid.

Art

>You certainly need a context to make a statement about
>homogeneity, but that context is *not* the mere fact that
>the data are all stored in the list.
>
>Regards,
>Martin