"jan ziak" <ziakjan at host.sk> wrote:
	you know i cannot do that, so why are you asking me to do it. the way we 
	communicate right now is textual, so i cannot describe it to you. but that is 
	the point: you and i both know that there is something which cannot be 
	expressed by text (e.g. pictures) - so i have proved that there exists 
	something which cannot be named by writing it in textual form.
	
You have *alleged* that you cannot *describe* it.
No way have you proved that you cannot *name* it.
Indeed, this is part of the point of names, to let us refer
to things by means of arbitrary symbols which would be tedious
or impossible to describe.

For example, there is a taste called "umami".  Don't ask me to describe
it or draw a picture.  But it was certainly possible for people to NAME
it, and they did.

Now for a proof that pictures can be expressed by text.
(1) The human eye has finite spatial resolution.
(2) The human eye has finite colour resolution.
(3) The human eye has a two-dimensional retina.
(4) If an image is (or, since we have two eyes, a pair of images are)
    copied to better accuracy than human spatial and colour resolution
    can discriminate, the copies will look like the originals to a human.
(5) But a finite number of pixels with a finite range of colours can
    be described by a finite text, whether it's JPEG or English.
Or, to be Samuel-Johnsonish about it, point your web browser at
http://heroeswest.com/georgewjageman/Hurdle.html
It's a picture.  It was expressed by what amounts to text.
	
For the record, I have no connection with georgewjagement; I was
trying to find electronic copies of pictures by Whistler.
Ah.  Here's one:
http://www.frik.org/assets/images/whistler_07_lg.jpg