Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:10:16 GMT
Message-ID: <chJzg.31712$pu3.422252_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> that a
>
>
> How about "the contents of a row stands for a proposition."
>
> I hear you. This reminds me of DEE and DUM. DEE and DUM are interesting,
> at least in theory.
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:10:16 GMT
Message-ID: <chJzg.31712$pu3.422252_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
David Cressey wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> news:HN5zg.274778$iF6.97061_at_pd7tw2no...
>
>>David Cressey wrote: >> >>>"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message >>>news:1154262656.521112.118530_at_b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>>This discussion has illuminated me, and I would like to share that. A >>>>row is of course merely a proposition, >>> >>> >>>A small but important (IMO) correction: >>> >>>A row contains a proposition. That's not quite equivalent to saying
>
> that a
>
>>>row is a proposition. >>> >>> >> >>Or a row stands for a proposition?
>
> How about "the contents of a row stands for a proposition."
Why are you so fixed on physical containment? Even in SQL, a row is not a physical container--indexes and heaps are.
>>(at least most of the time, ie., when the 'row' has at least one >>'column'! I know that's really nonsense, I was just trying to refer to >>Hugh Darwen's "the king of France is bald" example on dbdebunk.com.)
>
> I hear you. This reminds me of DEE and DUM. DEE and DUM are interesting,
> at least in theory.
Zero and one are interesting too -- at least in theory. Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 16:10:16 CEST