83,240
edits
Dilbert’s programme: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Wherever Dilbert found nouns, noun phrases or even suggestive adjectives, he defined them. he even launched a public appeal, to the eaglery of the land, asking them to submit canonical definitions for inclusion in his programme. He assembled a small research team and built a corrugated-iron shed in the grounds of Broadmoor Prison called the “Definorium” to house the submissions (bearing quotations illustrating the expressions to be defined), that began flooding in, and which the team wrote out on little brown cards called “[[rider]]s”. | Wherever Dilbert found nouns, noun phrases or even suggestive adjectives, he defined them. he even launched a public appeal, to the eaglery of the land, asking them to submit canonical definitions for inclusion in his programme. He assembled a small research team and built a corrugated-iron shed in the grounds of Broadmoor Prison called the “Definorium” to house the submissions (bearing quotations illustrating the expressions to be defined), that began flooding in, and which the team wrote out on little brown cards called “[[rider]]s”. | ||
===The [[Dilbert definition]]=== | ===The [[Dilbert definition]]=== | ||
After ten years Dilbert found, to his chagrin, that he had been unable to [[Reductionism|reduce]] a small, stubborn class of expressions where, logically, no better referent (what Dilbert called the “''definand''”) was available than the very referring expression itself (the “''definier''”). These cases he directed the team to define exactly as they were, to [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoid]], he claimed all [[doubt]] of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], though others suggested | After ten years Dilbert found, to his chagrin, that he had been unable to [[Reductionism|reduce]] a small, stubborn class of expressions where, logically, no better referent (what Dilbert called the “''definand''”) was available than the very referring expression itself (the “''definier''”). These cases he directed the team to define exactly as they were, to [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoid]], he claimed all [[doubt]] of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], though others suggested that it was more to do with Dilbert’s “strict Lutheran upbringing”.<ref>The consistently waggish librettist [[Otto Büchstein]] wondered aloud, in a self-published pamphlet, whether “Mr Dilbert had been, perhaps, too strongly chastised for accidents sustained during toilet-training (the behavioural consequence of such accidents collectively hereafter “anal retentivity”)”</ref> | ||
Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]”, where the thing being defined (the “''definand''”, notated ''Đ'') and the label defining it (the “definier”, notated ''đ'') are identical, per the following expression: | Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]”, where the thing being defined (the “''definand''”, notated ''Đ'') and the label defining it (the “definier”, notated ''đ'') are identical, per the following expression: | ||
:''Đ<sub>n</sub>'' ⇔ ''đ<sub>n</sub>'' | :''Đ<sub>n</sub>'' ⇔ ''đ<sub>n</sub>'' | ||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a [[Dilbert definition]] qualifies as an unusually stable type of [[Biggs hoson]], or whether it simply has null semantic content. | Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a [[Dilbert definition]] qualifies as an unusually stable type of [[Biggs hoson]], or whether it simply has null semantic content. | ||
===Cardozo undecidability=== | ===Cardozo undecidability=== | ||
One gray September day in 1907 a postcard containing a new definition dropped on the doormat of the Definorium. | |||
{{quote|“'''Inclusive definier'''” shall mean all definiers whose definand includes that definier. [[For the avoidance of doubt]], the inclusive definier itself shall be, and shall be deemed to be, an inclusive definier.}} | |||
Hilbert stroked his whiskers and read on. | |||
{{quote|“'''Exclusive definier'''” shall mean all definiers whose definand does ''not'' includes that definier. [[For the avoidance of doubt]], the exclusive definier itself shall}} | |||
[[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank|The remainder of the page was blank.]] | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||