Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iC4wc.5264$n65.4784_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:c9q5tj$4j3$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:u%%vc.5733$1I.4192_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > So what mathematical axioms do you know of that "map to reality"?
> >
> > Those arithmetic ones have worked OK for me.
>
> I agree, they work well. But what "reality" do they map to? They're
> synthetic, albeit extremely useful. How would you correlate them with
> reality?

Without looiking up the axioms themselves, I map the number 1 to a single sheep and then with addition, I add in sheep. It's all about sheep.

> > > I didn't realize that was the fundamental aspect of an axiom's value.
> > It is only of worth if you want to apply the mathematics to something,
> such
> > as databases.
>
> Right, but how exactly does one determine the applicability of mathematics
> to, say, physics? In other words, what axioms does any branch of
mathematics
> have that correlate to something in the real world?

I think that is where Wol's line of discussion was. As far as I'm concerned, they correlate as metaphors when they are used and then they are are used for that which they work for. So, the correlation is very pragmatic. There is no proof of such a correlation, but you can disprove an exact correlation just as you can come up with a fault in a metaphor.

Somehow I don't think I'm tapping into your questions right 'cause I think you and I agree on these points and are arguing anyway -- otherwise, without asking a qusetion for the answer, where do you think we have a disagreement in this area? --dawn Received on Sat Jun 05 2004 - 07:53:48 CEST