Is there a word that describes... 3

[Thadeus]

Hello all,
Is there a word that describes a multi part number like an IP address... meaning if n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n is the id given for a requirement doc, with each n representing a positive integer (n to infinity, except the functional extent is really a max of 2 unit places or 'nn')

So in other words, if it was a human readable notation for an IP address I was talking about, you have four (4) octets that are separated by decimal points... does the entirety have a name other than an 'address'? I would think that since the notation can exist for other purposes, that the group of digits separated by periods, ought to have some name.... but I perfectly concede that it may not.

I also feel that my description is lackluster in clarity... I apologize, I woke up an hour late this morning and haven't been myself since.

~Thadeus

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> I'm not going to defend something that I myself do not believe in.
Do you know what canonical means? Do you know what a canonical number is? Do you know what a canonical number system is? Do you also realize that they are three different terms? With respect to this thread, what is it that you don't believe in?

==> All that being said, I am having difficulty understanding how any discussion regarding "The words we use and how we use them" could possibly be "Outside the scope of this forum". This is why I changed the word Forum, to Thread in my response.Then you disagreed with even that.
You claimed in your post of 30 Jul 10 11:02 that:

Canonical in and of itself is too general for this thread (not forum)."

I disagree with your claim that canonical is too general for this thread. The term canonical, in and of itself, is not general at all. It's quite specific. It's an adjective which means that it's associated noun is consistent with, or adhering to the basic standards and rules. Those standards and rules are context-sensitive and therefore, canonical is contextually relevant to every thread. The term 'canonical number' is by definition, a number that is canonical, and again, it's going to contextually relevant to every thread in which canonical is relevant.

Now, a "canonical numbering system" is a mathematical term referring to a number system which conforms to certain rules, and the number system itself is outside the scope of MAI.

I had never heard the term

What is appropriate to MAI is to learn understand new terms and even moreso, how to properly recognize and use them.

What is not appropriate for any thread on Tek-Tips are snide comments.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[kwbMitel]

When I used the term "Canonical in and of itself is too general for this thread (not forum)." And then following it up with Canonical Numbering is not too general. I was responding to your statements immediately previous

Canonical simply means conforming to the recognized standards or rules. In other words, adhering to the canons, where the canons are the rules.

A canonical number by itself means nothing. It's only when put it in a context where rules and standards apply can you apply meaning to canonical number. The subject of canonical numbering systems is outside the scope of this forum.

From my perspective it appears that you have missed the context in which these statements have been made. The first part is conceding to your statements quoting above and the last part is disagreeing. From my perspective, you are now disagreeing with me conceeding your point (at least partially) At his point, I would like to use a word that metaphorically describes an Ouroboros but I do not know such a word so hopefully you'll get my meaning by description.

I'm sorry you took my lighthearted attempt at humor as being snide. It was not meant as such but I can see how that interpretation can be reached. It just seemed to me that you were being overly precise on a subject that didn't really matter to either of us. Your apparent need for preciseness exceeds mine and that is saying quite a lot as I have somewhat of a reputation in that regard among my peers. A friendly jibe might be my best description of the attempt that obviously missed the mark. No offense was intended, and I promise to be more precise when jesting as well in the future.

Getting back to the main point, and refreshing my earlier metaphor, canonical appears to be, metaphorically speaking at least, equivelent to Class or Order, where Heirarchical might be described as the Family and Dotted Decimal more specific still with Species. An ugly metaphor granted but the best I can do with the tools I have.

*******************************************************
Occam's Razor - All things being equal, the simplest solution is the right one.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> From my perspective it appears that you have missed the context in which these statements have been made. The first part is conceding to your statements quoting above and the last part is disagreeing. From my perspective, you are now disagreeing with me conceeding your point (at least partially) At his point, I would like to use a word that metaphorically describes an Ouroboros but I do not know such a word so hopefully you'll get my meaning by description.
I cannot speak to how you arrive at your perspective, nor will I try, and I don't think I missed the context of your statements. I do think you've confused the three separate terms: canonical, canonical number, and canonical number system, believing them to be interchangeable, which they are not. The only[/i] think that I've ever claimed is out of context is the subject of "canonical number systems", and I still stand by that claim. I have not changed my position about what I agree with and what I disagree with. I knew what these terms meant and how they applied to this thread/form before this discussion started. I know what they mean now, and how they apply, and I can tell you with complete certainly, nothing has changed in either their definition nor applicability. If you see change in either one, then I suggest that you investigate the nature of the changes that you see.

==> I would like to use a word that metaphorically describes an Ouroboros but I do not know such a word so hopefully you'll get my meaning by description.
While I understand that from your perspective you see me going in circles, I can assure you that my position has not moved one iota. Therefore, if what is being observed hasn't moved, yet the observer notices movement, then it must be the observer that is moving. Just as the ancients observed the sun to be moving in a circle around the earth, we now know that it was the observers who were actually moving in a circle.

==> It just seemed to me that you were being overly precise on a subject that didn't really matter to either of us.
Yes, I do prefer to be precise, because imprecision is one factor (not the only one, but one) that leads to misunderstanding. Now with respect to it not mattering to either of us, you're being quite presumptuous to assume you have any idea of of what does or does not matter to me.

=> Getting back to the main point, and refreshing my earlier metaphor, canonical appears to be, metaphorically speaking at least, equivelent to Class or Order, where Heirarchical might be described as the Family and Dotted Decimal more specific still with Species. An ugly metaphor granted but the best I can do with the tools I have.
Class, order, and family are all part of the hierarchical biological classification scheme. Neither dotted-decimal nor canonical are.

Canonical means adherence to a given set of rules, and no where is it required that the rules be hierarchical. The rules may or may not be hierarchical. A specific multi-par number may actually be hierarchical, but not canonical because it's an exception to the underlying numbering scheme.

Dotted-decimal is an alternative representation of another number. The representation may or may not be hierarchical.


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[kwbMitel]

CC - I used my words very carefully, and precisely in my last post. With one exception which slipped thru but you caught anyway, I did not suggest in anyway what you were saying was wrong, contadictory or any other negative connotation. My perspective is my own and how it appears to me is how I see it. I did not suggest in anyway that what you said or what I said was correct. In fact, I went out of my way to portray my beliefs as being in question. So, the one thing that did slip thru was my assumption / belief that Canonical is not a word that you support as being representative of the original subject matter of this thread. Your objection is noted.

That last was meant as a joke. Please lets stop now.

*******************************************************
Occam's Razor - All things being equal, the simplest solution is the right one.

 

[Annihilannic]

Another idea about the original topic... how about an "aggregate reference"?

Annihilannic.

 

[kjv1611]

I dunno, I think canonical packs a bit more punch.

 

[1DMF]

Isn't any form of hierarchical, or coded representation in a specific written form know as 'notation' ?

Short hand is a form of notation
Algebra is a form of notation
A programing language is a form of notation
IP addresses are a form of notation?

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts