Re: generalized elephants

["Glenn A. Carlson" <gcarlson@MAIL.WIN.ORG>]

If elephants are generalized to any mammal, you're too restrictive.
If elephants are generalized to any non-extinct proboscidean, you're
not restrictive enough.

I agree that the issue is context -- the problem with "generalized
elephants" is failing to ask for it; the problem with "generalized
rotations" is failing to provide it.

Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
gcarlson@mail.win.org

> Subject: Re: generalized elephants
> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:08:19 -0500
> From: John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>
>
> At 11:25 PM 10/29/00 -0600, Glenn A. Carlson wrote:
>
> > We all know what an elephant is, but if I started talking about a
> > "generalized elephant," I would expect someone to ask (with more or
> > less diplomacy) what concept or principle of an elephant I am
> > generalizing.  Replying "It won't do to claim that the elephant can't
> > be generalized" is not responsive.  Replying that anteaters and jack
> > rabbits are examples of generalized elephants is only somewhat
> > responsive since it begs the question which concept or principle is
> > being derived from the particulars of elephants, anteaters, and jack
> > rabbits.
>
> 1) If a student were to ask me about "generalized elephants" (without
> additional context) I would mention mastodons and woolly mammoths, and
> would recommend the Encyclopedia Britannica which has a multi-hundred-word
> article on "proboscidean".
>
> 2a) If anybody really thinks that anteaters and jackrabbits exemplify a
> more-suitable generalization, please explain.
>
> 2b) If OTOH this is meant to illustrate the general point that no matter
> what you are doing, you can always do it wrong... then I completely
> agree!  When a student asks a question, if you try hard enough to
> misunderstand, you can misunderstand.