Error-Prone Features, Incorporated

My last decision theory column featured a challenge to find common English words that have two meanings - each the opposite of the other. From the perspective of minimizing the errors in transmission, one would not expect symbols to be able to stand for different meanings, particularly not opposite meanings, but we seem to glory in skirting the edges of incomprehensibility in our common speech. As an example, consider the words “bad” and cool.” In common usage, these can assume contradictory meanings.

The word “dust” used as a verb can mean to remove dust as in cleaning, or it can mean putting dust on something as in gathering fingerprints.

“Ravel,” “repair,” and “trim” are similar. “Trimming” a Christmas tree means putting things on it, but when I trim my beard, I am taking things off.

Look here for a more complete list (surprisingly long). There are other lists, but this one is nice.

Why do we incorporate such error-prone features in our prime method of communicating? I don’t know, but maybe it is just fun. Or maybe it is a way of preventing people who are not in our trusted local group from knowing what we are really saying. The multiple meanings of “bad” probably originated in that way.

The lesson to be learned here is that in considering the errors in various transmission systems, technical analysis should be primarily concerned with the accurate reproduction of a string on bits. That can be studied and optimized logically. Extending the analysis to include the actual intent of the sender, and what is actually understood by a receiving person, is fraught with difficulties. Unraveling these difficulties would require a knowledge of a variety of disciplines such as physiology and psychology. In some cases a knowledge of the current political situation and the religious leanings of the senders and receivers are necessary.

Just as some words can have the opposite meaning that we expect, areas of study that we think are complex can be relatively simpler than studies we think are more complex. An electrical engineer who specializes in communications and an industrial psychologist who also specializes in communications probably have vastly different ideas of the relative complexity of each discipline.

Now that we have a list of words that can commonly have opposite meanings, can anyone construct a complete sentence that can be read in two different ways? How could such a sentence be flagged by a communication system to indicate which of the possible meanings is the desired one?

In response to the interest my original tutorial generated, I have completely re - written and expanded it. Check out the tutorial availability through Lockergnome. The new version is over 100 pages long with chapters that alternate between discussion of the theoretical aspects and puzzles just for the fun of it. Puzzle lovers will be glad to know that I included an answers section that includes discussions as to why the answer is correct and how it was obtained. Most of the material has appeared in these columns, but some is new. Most of the discussions are expanded compared to what they were in the original column format.

[tags]decision theory,sherman e. deforest,language barrier,contradictory meaning,antagonym[/tags]