r...@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 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
