Java Collections List : Converting from List '<Column <String1,String2>>' to 'List <String1>'

[Nigel Wade]

That ${someone} wrote ${something} is not "evidence" for
that ${someone} actually meant ${something}.

It's better evidence that they meant it than that they didn't mean it.
Which is the essence of this [pointless] argument.

It's generally a strong indication, so your assumption wasn't
generally weak, but still it's no evidence.

It's evidence, it is reasonably convincing evidence. It is not, however,
conclusive evidence. But in the absence of any conclusive evidence one
can only work with the evidence which is available, and that would lead
to the conclusion that the OP actually meant what they wrote.

Otoh, the stranger ${something} is (e.g. using String1 without
further explanation of it), the weaker is even the indication.

Maybe so, but it's still a better assumption that they meant what they
wrote than that they didn't. In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary on what basis do you assume that they /did not/ mean it?

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

It's better evidence that they meant it than that they didn't mean it.

Seems like you share Lew's relaxed definition of "evidence".

Which is the essence of this [pointless] argument.

Pointless, not so much, but not very fruitful, either. :-(

But in the absence of any conclusive evidence one can only
work with the evidence which is available, and that would lead
to the conclusion that the OP actually meant what they wrote.

If using your relaxed definition of "evidence", this is correct,
but doesn't apply. There *is* "evidence"(again, the relaxed one)
that the numbers appended to String were meant to "tag" them for
later reference. Lew is either blind to these other sources of
"evidence" or consciously ignores them. You, too?

Thus, the precondition of "absence" of other "evidence" isn't an
absolute given.

Just as much, as there exists an indication (inferred from his posting
history, as well as the small Hamming-distance to the more sense making
"for what") that Lew didn't mean to make up the word "forwhat". Lew
might, of course, anytime clarify if indeed he meant to make up a new
word "forwhat".

 

[Nigel Wade]

Seems like you share Lew's relaxed definition of "evidence".

I think I share his actual definition of evidence, rather than the one
you've invented.

Which is the essence of this [pointless] argument.

Pointless, not so much, but not very fruitful, either. :-(

But in the absence of any conclusive evidence one can only
work with the evidence which is available, and that would lead
to the conclusion that the OP actually meant what they wrote.

If using your relaxed definition of "evidence",

my definition is accurate. You seem to be very confused between evidence
and inference.

this is correct,

but doesn't apply. There *is* "evidence"(again, the relaxed one)
that the numbers appended to String were meant to "tag" them for
later reference.

no, not evidence, inference. You have no evidence whatsoever that the OP
did not mean what they stated, only your own inference.

So, the blatant fact that the OP actually stated something is somehow
not evidence (unless you "relax" the term in your words), but your
inference that the OP somehow didn't mean what they said is actual
evidence? And you accuse me and Lew of distorting facts?

Lew is either blind to these other sources of

"evidence" or consciously ignores them. You, too?

No, we are blind to your ignoring actual evidence and instead
substituting your inferences in lieu, and then claiming it as evidence.

Thus, the precondition of "absence" of other "evidence" isn't an
absolute given.

Just as much, as there exists an indication (inferred from his posting
history, as well as the small Hamming-distance to the more sense making
"for what") that Lew didn't mean to make up the word "forwhat". Lew
might, of course, anytime clarify if indeed he meant to make up a new
word "forwhat".

and the inference from your post, where you stipulate that just because
someone wrote something is not evidence that they meant it, is that we
should accept nothing you write in your posts because it's probably not
what you actually meant. On that basis I'll take that lack of evidence
that you actually mean what you've written, and instead infer that you
are actually in full agreement with both Lew and myself.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

I think I share his actual definition of evidence, rather than the one
you've invented.

I'm not that creative. I ripped mine from Wikipedia, instead.
And I found it surprisingly consistent with what I remember
having learnt in those English lessons at school, long ago, btw.

Your recent postings indicate that you've written me off as a
troll, and just play your "confuse-a-troll" program on me.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Certainly it is, unless you're a solipsist. It's not proof (for any
number of reasons, mostly epistemological, phenomenological, and
psychological), but it is evidence.

Your definition of "evidence" seem to be incompatible.

Your use of "incompatible" has the wrong arity. It's a comparative
attribute.

Wikipedia says:
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is
used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
[...]
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden
of proof."

Wikipedia is neither the arbiter of the English language nor an
authority on epistemological foundation. I don't know whether you did
a poor job of quoting whatever article that comes from, or whether the
article in question is poorly written; but that's not a useful
definition of "evidence" in relation to the interpretation of a
written statement.

Under any useful theory of the interpretation of writing - from the
most bluntly realist, intentionalist claims that an utterance means
what its author believes it means, to the most deferred, displaced,
non-transmissive ends of poststructuralism and neopragmatism - must
hold that the utterance is in some way *evidence* of an
interpretation, and the outcome of interpretation is meaning.

Even under Derrida's model of writing as the trace of an
eternally-deferred meaning; even under Lacan's locating the origin of
writing in the unconscious (and so original meaning is largely
inaccessible to the author); even under Foucault's rejection of the
author-function; even under Rorty's rejection of the model of language
as a channel for the transmission of an idea. Under all of these,
parole is still evidence of meaning.

Whether that meaning is the facade of a meaning that inheres in the
author's conscious thought is another question - that one's been
fought over endlessly since at least the beginning of the twentieth
century (and sporadically before that, probably since people first had
the leisure time to worry about inconsequentials). But if you accept
the axioms that 1) someone created the utterance and 2) that person
did so under the influence of meaning, then the utterance must be
*evidence* of that meaning. (It could be misleading, misinterpreted,
damaged, etc. But it's still evidence of that meaning.)

Oh, and by your own logic&terms, we have now strong "evidence",
that you *meant* to create the new word "forwhat"...

Evidence. Not "strong" evidence. Why? Because we can assign
probabilities to features of the surface form of the utterance. In
fact we have to; that's how we're able to process natural language at
all, with its ambiguities and errors.

 

[Lew]

Certainly it is, unless you're a solipsist. It's not proof (for any
number of reasons, mostly epistemological, phenomenological, and
psychological), but it is evidence.

Your definition of "evidence" seem to be incompatible.

Your use of "incompatible" has the wrong arity. It's a comparative
attribute.

Wikipedia says:
 "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is
  used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
  [...]
  Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden
  of proof."

Wikipedia is neither the arbiter of the English language nor an
authority on epistemological foundation. I don't know whether you did
a poor job of quoting whatever article that comes from, or whether the
article in question is poorly written; but that's not a useful
definition of "evidence" in relation to the interpretation of a
written statement.

Under any useful theory of the interpretation of writing - from the
most bluntly realist, intentionalist claims that an utterance means
what its author believes it means, to the most deferred, displaced,
non-transmissive ends of poststructuralism and neopragmatism - must
hold that the utterance is in some way *evidence* of an
interpretation, and the outcome of interpretation is meaning.

Even under Derrida's model of writing as the trace of an
eternally-deferred meaning; even under Lacan's locating the origin of
writing in the unconscious (and so original meaning is largely
inaccessible to the author); even under Foucault's rejection of the
author-function; even under Rorty's rejection of the model of language
as a channel for the transmission of an idea. Under all of these,
parole is still evidence of meaning.

Whether that meaning is the facade of a meaning that inheres in the
author's conscious thought is another question - that one's been
fought over endlessly since at least the beginning of the twentieth
century (and sporadically before that, probably since people first had
the leisure time to worry about inconsequentials). But if you accept
the axioms that 1) someone created the utterance and 2) that person
did so under the influence of meaning, then the utterance must be
*evidence* of that meaning. (It could be misleading, misinterpreted,
damaged, etc. But it's still evidence of that meaning.)

Oh, and by your own logic&terms, we have now strong "evidence",
that you *meant* to create the new word "forwhat"...

Evidence. Not "strong" evidence. Why? Because we can assign
probabilities to features of the surface form of the utterance. In
fact we have to; that's how we're able to process natural language at
all, with its ambiguities and errors.

Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. You are a master, M. Wojcik. I
learned a great deal from this post.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

I clarified that I considered evidence to be a synonym of proof.
As it isn't (so far three posters seem to agree on that it isn't.
I've yet to meet a native English speaker that I really trust to
confirm it, but I'll pretend to be convinced for now for the sake
of this discussion), there's no sense in judging my statement as
if I had denied any indication-ship at all.

[...] Under all of these, parole is still evidence of meaning.

It is! I'm not changing my mind here, just correcting my vocabulary.

What's still open, and where I'm sure that I disagree at least with
Lew, is, how to weigh that particular evidence against the already
mentioned counter-indications drawn from context.

Oh, and by your[Lew's] own logic&terms, we have now strong
"evidence", that you *meant* to create the new word "forwhat"...

Evidence. Not "strong" evidence.

Lew appeared very confident about the OP meaning to write about
String-compatible user defined types String1 and String2, so
with this mindset, usage of "forwhat" would have to be really
strong evidence, too. Hardly to anyone else, though.

 

[Lew]

Lew appeared very confident about the OP meaning to write about
String-compatible user defined types String1 and String2, so
with this mindset, usage of "forwhat" would have to be really
strong evidence, too. Hardly to anyone else, though.

That's a misinterpretation of what I said.

I never spoke to the strength of the evidence. But the evidence was there, as
I said and you finally conceded.

Programming is an art of precision. If the OP had meant 'String' in his code,
he should have said that. The natural language "forwhat" is not a comparable
error; rules of interpretation are different for natural language than for
code. As you no doubt realize but that it would interfere with your sophistry.

If the OP really did mean 'String', they were careless, just as I was with
"forwhat". But the former means a program crash, and the latter nearly nothing.

Given that the OP's post used 'String1' and 'String2' repeatedly, and that he
was careful to use both, it was evident that the choice was deliberate, unlike
with my typo. A deliberately chosen parole carries more evidentiary weight
than an accidentally chosen one. Another point omitted in your sophistry.

Regardless, it's clear that you're arguing for the sake of arguing, misstating
my position so that you can continue to argue it, and generally behaving very
unlike your usual contributory self.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

But the evidence was there, as I said and you finally conceded.

I immediately conceded with the "indication" being there. It just
took me a while to accept that "evidence" really appears to be
understood as a synonym of indication by more than just you alone,
despite wikipedia (possibly falsely) supporting my (old) understanding.

Programming is an art of precision.

Programming is.
Asking a question here, otoh., is communication, not programming.
We're no AI-robots, but humans, and should be mentally able (even
if not always willing) to parse less than perfect problem-descriptions
and apply a good dose of experience and gut-feeling w.r.t what the
asker really might mean.

If the OP had meant 'String' in his code, he should have said that.

There's some evidence (induced by that it just makes most sense to
assume it), that the appended numbers were neither carelessness
nor meant literally, but just a meta-syntax to *tag* each use of
String. As such, I found it impressively clear and concise.

... your usual contributory self.

Thanks at least for that last acknowledgement.

I haven't consciously left it. Casually, I feel like clarifying
misunderstandings between others. That it may happen that I
introduce even worse ones thereby, is at least not intended.