Posted by Reilly Atkinson on September 28, 1999 at 01:29:03:

In Reply to: Re: Salute! #1 posted by mike cahill on September 27, 1999 at 17:16:13:

Mike -- I suppose I would be somewhat satisfied, although it seems to me that at times the construction of one of your triads is simply clever linguistic play. In fact, I have the suspicion that any element of knowledge that can be described in language can be mapped into a triadic representation and vica versa. But all this asserts is that there is a 1-1 (or maybe many-many) mapping between two languages, and that tells me next to nothing. I would be truly satisfied if you could tell me in straightforward pragmatic and practical terms why I should bother with this triadic stuff. Where's the beef? Enough with all the hand waving, give me something I can take to the bank. As the great Duke Ellington said, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing." Make it swing, man.

If you can do that, then I'll even forgive you for neglecting most of the issues and discussions of knowledge that constitute an enormous portion of Western Intellectual History, and Eastern as well.

I'll even forget to mention that your figure in the 5th posting is topologically equivalent to three ordered lists -- that is the contents of any partitioned list of points can be represented along appropriate Euclidean n-space axes. In plain language, this means that the information in your diagram is independent of representation.

You've just discovered one of many equivalent representations of discrete data or information. Over the course of the past 50 years, for example, or so, this type of representation has been often used - if I'm not mistaken in my recollection, such reps have been used for descriptions of semantic networks, which are quite closely related to your triads. Your rep is quite closely related to the descriptive mode of relational data bases. Your rep can be important if there is benefit to be gained from the representation, you have yet to show that this is the case.Tell me something I don't know, something that is not already in the literature.

Regards
Reilly

---

Follow Ups:

• Wonder C. J. Sekhar 10:43:37 9/28/99 (4)
  • Re: Wonder (and possible UTK test) Kees de Vos 16:56:01 9/28/99 (3)
    • Re: Wonder (and possible UTK test) mike cahill 20:13:20 9/28/99 (2)
      • Learning styles and UTK? L.Grohn 03:17:58 9/29/99 (1)
        • Re: Learning styles and UTK? mike cahill 15:20:41 9/29/99 (0)
• PS mike cahill 03:18:55 9/28/99 (0)
• Re: Salute! #1 mike cahill 03:07:25 9/28/99 (9)
  • Question on inverse use of UTK (a.k.a alternative UTK) Kees de Vos 16:41:50 9/28/99 (2)
    • Re: Question on inverse use of UTK (a.k.a alternative UTK) mike cahill 20:21:17 9/28/99 (1)
      • Re: Question on inverse use of UTK (a.k.a alternative UTK) mike cahill 20:23:10 9/28/99 (0)
  • Re: Salute! #1 rEILLY aTKINSON 12:38:32 9/28/99 (5)
    • At the heart of knowledge Denham 14:38:53 9/28/99 (4)
      • At The Heart of the Matter Martyn R Jones 11:17:11 9/30/99 (3)
        • Re: At The Heart of the Matter mike cahill 13:27:38 9/30/99 (2)
          • Re: At The Heart of the Matter Martyn R Jones 13:54:27 9/30/99 (1)
            • Re: At The Heart of the Matter mike cahill 14:32:51 9/30/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: