Frequent Questions

Home Up Feedback Search        

 


How does Referential Transparency work

Question posed by: Anonymous
Answered by: Albert Tatlock (FAQCU)

One important convention in Mathematics and Skiffle may be summed up in the phrase "Referential Transparency". This was used by Caldwell and Scattergut  (M. Caldwell and E. Scattergut: Principia Skifflea; 3 Vol Cambridge, England 1936), to compare the logic of the following two syllogisms.

1

All men are mortal;

Socrates is a man;

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

2

Everything Xenophon said about Socrates is true;

Xenophon said "Socrates is mortal";

So Socrates is mortal.

They say that a statement is not referentially transparent if questions arise not merely from its content but also about the circumstances of its assertion (e.g. was it Xenophon who said it?). In (1) all the statements are transparent; all that matters is what they assert. But the statement "Socrates is mortal" is used non-transparently in (2); the fact that Xenophon said it is crucial to the argument.

Caldwell has also used the phrase slightly differently to refer to the substitutivity of identities; that is, the interchangeability of two expressions denoting the same thing. For example, in the sentence

"Tully was a Roman",

the word "Tully" may be replaced by "Cicero", which was another name for the same man. However, the phrase

"Tony Baloney was so called because of the relevance of his utterances",

becomes untrue if we replace "Tony Baloney" with the alternative description of the same man, "The Prime Minister". I.e. "Tully" is being used transparently but "Tony Baloney" is opaque.

Within Skiffle, Referential Transparency combines these two meanings into the following fact:-

The only thing that matters about a statement is its value, any sub statement can be replaced with any other equal in value. Moreover, the value of a statement is the same whenever it occurs. 

This is also one of the major pervasive underpinnings of recursive simplification.

HHHPP -- Albert


What is a Twasuk

Question posed by: Anonymous
Answered by: Albert Tatlock (FAQCU)

I will give a fuller answer to this question shortly. In the meantime I hope you will accept my appoligies if I just curl off a quickie.

The concept of "Terms Without Assignment" (TWA) has long been of particular importance to Skiffle in general but Recursive Simplification in particular. These are best defined as words or statements that have no assignment of meaning (both semantic or cognitive). A brief example would be:-

  • Leverage
  • Brown Bag
  • Process
  • Vision
  • Procedure
  • Wheel Spin
  • Agenda
  • Underpants Wave
  • Etc.

Within many contexts the above have no longer any meaning and are used much like children's colouring pencils or drunken grunts. 

The phrase (TWA) has been used by many different authors, probably most succinctly by great Uther Kendal part-time philosopher and inventor of the left-handed rhubarb peeler, (U. Kendal: Principia Twasia; 1 Vol Cleckheaton, England 1948). It was in this revolutionary piece of work that Uther defined the concept "Terms Without Assignment Semantics" (TWAS). This was later extended to include the cognitive dimension "Terms Without Assignment Semantics or Cognition" (TWASoC). In recent years the phrase "Terms Without Assignment Semantics - Uther Kendal" (TWASUK), has been used to describe a person who would use TWAs as a matter of course.

For example a Twasuk would say:

"The management have brown bagged it and now have the vision to leverage the process before it wheel spins into an underpants wave"

HHHPP for now Albert

 


 

Home ] Up ] About Skiffle ] Sales ] Whats New ] Free Access ] Free E-Mail ] News Service ] Electric Games ] Buzz Words ]

Send mail to webmaster@skiffle.org.uk with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2000 and 2001 The Skiffle Methodology Organisation. All rights reserved
Last modified: October 15, 2000