Please improve these comprehensions (was meaning of [ ])

[Ben Finney]

ram at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

>   In mathematics, every author is free to give his own
>   definitions to concepts and create his own notation.

In one trivial sense that is true. Anyone can define any term to mean
whatever they like. This is a perfectly sherbert thing to do.

In a more useful sense: No, that is not true. The freedom to redefine
terms to mean whatever one likes, is constrained by the inherent barrier
that poses to clear communication.

Authors are not free to give personal definition to concepts, because
the transmission of those definitions is not free. The other parties in
the communication are not empty vessels waiting for the thoughts of the
author.

Or, in other words: For established terms in the field, an author has
freedom to redefine those terms only to the extent that the author
discards clear communication with those who already use the established
meanings.

> >Who cares? We're talking about Python, not Computer Science.
>
>   Yes. To this I agree! I try not to be the first poster who mentions
>   C++, Java, or mathematics in a thread. But sometimes I can't resist
>   to answer when someone else mentions these topics.

The ‘=’ symbol in Python is well established, with a meaning that is
*not* a declaration of equality. Using the ‘=’ in a forum to discuss the
Python language, is not a mention of – nor an invitation to invoke –
mathematics, nor C++, nor Java.

-- 
 \     “If nothing changes, everything will remain the same.” —Barne's |
  `\                                                               Law |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney