More  Detailed Orders of Ignorance
Finer 5OI

In formulating the Five Orders of Ignorance, and reconciling the need for process, a need arose for subdivisions of the 5OI.  These are perhaps not as semantically precise as the original 5OI, but they do expose some other aspects of the pursuit of knowledge.

Zero Order Ignorance (0OI)

We have seen that 0OI, is extant knowledge.  From the statement of 0OI, we know something and can demonstrate that we know something.  In the book The Laws of Software Process I divided each of the lower four Orders of Ignorance into thirds (eg. "pure" 0OI, 0.1/3OI, and 0.2/3OI).  This is, I think, a little cumbersome.  While there is a build relationship--in order to have "pure" 0OI, one must resolve the other two flavors of Zero Order Ignorance--but here I will use a "prime" notation, viz: 0OI', 0OI'', and 0OI'''.  Hopefully it will be a little less cumbersome that the original.

Zero Order Ignorance Prime (0OI'): I have Zero Order Ignorance (Prime) when I know something, I know how to prove I know something, and I know how to set up a demonstration of that proof

A piano example: I have 0OI' about Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on piano if (1) I know the piece (2) I know how to play the piano and (3) I know how to set up the environment to prove I have knowledge of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata.

Using a negative-proof approach, we can see that each of these steps involve related but different knowledge and application:

(a) I might I know the piece theoretically [1] , but if I don't have the second step (2) I cannot demonstrate and thereby prove it.  The knowledge that separates these two parts is the knowledge of how to actually play the piano at all.

(b) I might know the piece and know how to play it, but if I cannot arrange for a piano, at some time and location, and with an audience to whom I can prove I know the piece, I cannot render the provable element of 0OI [2] 

Zero Order Ignorance Double Prime (0OI''): I have Zero Order Ignorance (Double Prime) when I know something, I know how to prove I know something, but I don't know how to exhibit that proof

Here, I might know the score, I can play it, but I am unable to prove such because of my ignorance of how to prove it.  So I can play for myself perfectly (as far as I am aware) [3] 

Zero Order Ignorance Triple Prime (0OI'''): I have Zero Order Ignorance (Triple Prime) when I know something, but I don't know how to prove I know something

And here, I have knowledge of the score, but I can't actually play it.  And therefore I cannot prove I have knowledge of the score. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1]   It is quite common for members of the audience at a classical music concert to bring the orchestral score and "read along" with the playing.  However capable they might be at reading the score, and they might know exaactly how it should sound, what stress should be put on what parts of the score, when it should speed up and slow down, but they are likely quite unable to actually play it.
[2]  This is the knowledge of how to actually set up a demonstration.  Of course, it may be that I  do not need have all this knowledge if the concert is being set up by someone else such as a music professor assessing my proficiency or a promoter setting up a concert.  However, I would have to have the knowledge of who this person is and what they know (and can demonstrate).  In this case part (3) would simply be the contact information of this person.

[3]  ...and because of the Dunning/Kruger syndrome, I might be wholly self-deceived.