Bob,

PMFJI, however consider this:
IMO
The capacity of two entities to inter-relate provides coherence.
The entities exist, independent of each other, through cohesion.
Inter = coherence, intra = cohesion.
Coherence is potential. Cohesion is actual.

Adherence and adhesion may be explained in a similar fashion.

My 2c worth.


>Hello Nancy, Thanks for your response.
>
>>Probably. Coherent is a perfectly good word, though somewhat different in intonnation than cohesive. But the point is that we're talking about definitions and the definition is for "cohesive." If you start throwing in different words to replace the defined term, then you start to introduced vagueness or ambiguity in the discussion. So, we should stick with "cohesive."
>
>When I wrote - Being that cohesion means "exhibiting or producing cohesion or coherence"- I copied that verbatim from my Webster’s dictionary. So wouldn’t that be the definition for “cohesive? I think the ambiguity reside in the word it self, which leads us to Mike’s question, what is the meaning of the words coupling and cohesion. I’m not trying to be difficult in this discussion, I’m trying to understand the use of the term just like Mike.
>
>>> Something with high cohesion would be easier to understand, low cohesion would be harder to understand.
>
>>Not necessarily. First, coherent doesn't mean easy to understand. It just means understandable. Makes sense. Lucidity. Stephen Hawking's theories are lucid and coherent, but hardly easily understood by most mortals. *s*
>
>Make sense? Not yet, I wasn’t implying that coherent meant easy to understand. I was stating that if something was high in cohesion it easier to understand or understandable (which is your definition).
>
>>> If this is the case if something is cohesive wouldnt that be coherent?
>
>>I don't know. And, frankly, I don't really care. Discussing coherency is outside the boundries of the topic, IMO, and are philosophical, or a matter for the functional analysis. *s*
>
>Nancy you wrote - Cohesive. Not coherent - I was just trying to understand your comment. From what I’ve read if something is cohesive it is coherent, the opposite of what you said. Again I’m trying to understand the terms used. I'm not trying to be difficult