No description of another description can be a complete description.

[cyborg]

Discuss.

[Darth Rotor]

Discuss.
Recursive or regressive?

DR

[sphenisc]

Discuss.

Is a description complete if it is sufficient to precisely generate the original?

[cyborg]

Recursive or regressive?

If you want.

Is a description complete if it is sufficient to precisely generate the original?

You tell me.

[Mobyseven]

All this brings to mind is the question regarding definite descriptions and Kevin Rudd on my logic exam. Don't ask.

I'll pass for the moment.

[Mercutio]

So. This cy-something person posted a thread that said that no something of another something can be a something something.

Did I get that right?

[Bob Klase]

Discuss.

Why?

[cyborg]

Did I get that right?

That would be the question of the day.

[gorillapaws]

your statement is false. Translation is one example of how a description can be converted to a different description that is itself a complete description.

[Mercutio]

your statement is false. Translation is one example of how a description can be converted to a different description that is itself a complete description.
Renata and I have had long discussions on this topic (mostly about poetry, rather than descriptions per se, I admit). If your statement here is true, we would have no need for the phrase "lost in translation". The extent to which a translation can express the original author's meaning may well vary across situations, but I would not assume that there is no loss at all.

But of course, "a complete description" is precisely the *goal* of translation, so this is perhaps the best example by which to test the premise.

[triadboy]

Look at a French poem translated to English. Could the English translation EVER contain the subtle nuances of the French language? No. It's 'feeling' will be different.

So you are correct: No description of another description can be a complete description. (If 'complete' means an exact copy)

[cyborg]

But of course, "a complete description" is precisely the *goal* of translation, so this is perhaps the best example by which to test the premise.

Well this is the problem; is a translation complete when by its very nature it excludes the original form of expression?

[gorillapaws]

The question at hand is if it's possible. I think there are many translations that are perfect 1 to 1 in meaning, and there are many phrases, words and statements that loose meaning when translated (thus why we have the expression "lost in translation"). Just because some can't doesn't mean that they all can't. I could say for example: "he eats" and which translates to "il mange" in French. That example seems like a pretty clear cut case.

Why are we discussing this again? Is this the pretext to a bigger question somehow?

[nosho]

No description of another description can be a complete description.

There's no such thing as a complete description of anything. All descriptions are incomplete.

[cyborg]

Why are we discussing this again? Is this the pretext to a bigger question somehow?

Last time I checked the only way we could discuss anything is by using descriptions.

[cyborg]

There's no such thing as a complete description of anything. All descriptions are incomplete.

Does the thread topic completely describe that situation or not? ;)

[andyandy]

surely it can provided it faithfully follows the previous description which itself was a complete description.

Why would a description of a previous description preclude repetition?

In any case, even leaving to one side repitition,

The cartesian coordiantes $ (1,1,\sqrt{2})$ describe a 3 dimensional position in space. I can provide a description of that description of a 3 dimensional position in space by using spherical coordinates $ (2, \pi/2, \pi/4)$. This is a complete description of the previously given description.