tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6138624.post6804817178463121548..comments2023-03-17T14:45:50.282+00:00Comments on Exploring the Purpose of Things: Trespassers WillRichard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6138624.post-83045525047301604442014-06-08T12:43:43.144+01:002014-06-08T12:43:43.144+01:00And we should not forget the ambiguity of all the ...And we should not forget the ambiguity of all the other words. Who counts as a smoker? What about someone who is currently trying to kick the habit, and hasn't had a cigarette for three weeks? Who counts as a trespasser?Richard Veryardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6138624.post-16350451173488983522008-11-10T10:45:00.000+00:002008-11-10T10:45:00.000+00:00Of course there is a linguistic difference between...Of course there is a linguistic difference between WILL and MAY, but if your agenda is to find ambiguity, then I don't think MAY is the chief culprit.<BR/><BR/>Let's look at your example. What is the real difference between the two sentences?<BR/><BR/>smokers will ...<BR/>smokers may ...<BR/><BR/>In this particular case, you are probably safe to assume that "smokers will" means "all smokers will always". However, a pedantic systems analyst would need to verify this assumption.<BR/><BR/>But putting this pedantry aside, in both cases the insurance company has the power to deny insurance coverage. As far as I can see, the main differences are (i) where in the process the insurance company makes this decision and (ii) how visible and predictable this decision is to the smoking customer.<BR/><BR/>So I can't see that MAY confers any more power to the customer. Arguably, it is the visibility and predictability of WILL that gives slightly more power to the customer.<BR/><BR/>So I prefer to discuss questions of power in WHO/WHOM terms, within the context of a distributed system with multiple stakeholders, rather than purely linguistic analysis.<BR/><BR/>Systems thinking aside, there is another notion of power implicit in your comment, which has to do with the propositional strength of a given rule. I agree that WILL (with ambiguities removed) has greater propositional strength than MAY. <BR/><BR/>Of course I might choose values of P and Q so that MAY P is more persuasive than WILL Q, but this is nothing to do with propositional strength.<BR/><BR/>However, propositional strength is not always the same as logical precision (lack of ambiguity). If you are looking for an "iron-clad business rule that has no loopholes", then it is precision you need, not propositional strength. And because WILL is vulnerable to greater ambiguity than MAY, it is potentially less precise.Richard Veryardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6138624.post-59085022742250109212008-11-07T20:56:00.000+00:002008-11-07T20:56:00.000+00:00Richard - I believe we are at odds on two of my vi...Richard - I believe we are at odds on two of my views. <BR/><BR/>(1) On the power of WILL vs. MAY:<BR/><BR/>You say “Meanwhile, “Trespassers Will” is still pretty indefinite. Does it mean ALL trespassers or SOME? Immediately or later? If I trespass and I am not shot, is that a counter-example or a stay of execution? If no trespassers have ever been shot, what should I conclude from that? Do I want to be the first?”<BR/><BR/>To examine my point, we should compare two sentences:<BR/><BR/>"Smokers will be denied insurance coverage"<BR/>"Smokers may be denied insurance coverage"<BR/><BR/>Of the two, I argue that "will" is by far the more powerful and further, that it is rigid in its power. Specifically, if you implement that construct in a business rule engine (or even in any coded system) it is always definitive. <BR/><BR/>If [applicant] = “Smoker” THEN [policy_status] = “DENIED”<BR/><BR/>There is no need to ask if ALL or SOME will be denied – the end result is 100% denial, as defined in this rule. If we stick to mushy actions as implemented by humans, then certainly I can accept a fuzzy interpretation. Rules are broken all the time – hence the mess we are in right now. But, as implemented in silicon, the LOAD, COMPARE, BRANCH NOT EQUAL compiled logic is anything but fuzzy. The outcome is always the same: DENIAL. Will is definitive in this case.<BR/><BR/>(2) On comparing WILL vs MAY in alternative scenarios:<BR/><BR/>On your blog, you state, “Based on the simple linguistic analysis David recommends, the possibility of death is not as strong a sanction as the certainty of a fine.”<BR/><BR/>No. I believe two equivalent constructs that differ only by MAY or WILL are easily compared. I always favor the WILL construct.<BR/><BR/>BLAH BLAH WILL BLAH >= BLAH BLAH MAY BLAH<BR/><BR/>Your scenario is a bit unfair as you are cross-comparing two vastly different statements. I would reword it to say: “Based on the simple linguistic analysis David recommends, the possibility of death is not as strong a sanction as the certainty of death.”<BR/><BR/>Consider: <BR/><BR/>I MAY feed you to a crocodile <BR/>I WILL give you a penny<BR/><BR/>All I would say about these sentences is:<BR/><BR/>I MAY feed you to a crocodile is not as strong as I WILL feed you to a crocodile<BR/>I WILL give you a penny is stronger than I MAY give you a penny<BR/><BR/>I will not (and did not) assert that the possibility of being fed to a crocodile (the possibility of death) is of lesser interest to me than the assurance of gaining a measly penny. <BR/><BR/>The later argument reminds me of Pascal’s Wager. The infinitely small possibility of an infinitely important outcome is the ultimate “may.” But, it is a “may” that only a fool would ignore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com