Re: computational model of transactions

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:J5vBg.331385$IK3.210450_at_pd7tw1no...
> Brian Selzer wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Time may be optional, but I don't think you can ignore order. You speak
>> of a logical "sum." Since we're dealing with propositions, I think that
>> that "sum" must be conjunctive in nature, but is not logical conjunction
>> exactly, because the order in which the propositions are "summed" is
>> important. If the propositions to be "summed" form a set, then order is
>> not important, but I don't think they form a set, but rather a list, and
>> your reference to retractions above implies that. The truth of a set of
>> propositions is the same regardless of the order, but the same is not
>> true with a list of propositions. In a list, the same assertion can be
>> stated more than once while still maintaining consistency, provided that
>> there are intervening retractions. The same is not true if those
>> assertions and retractions are taken together as a set. The conjunction,
>> A ^ ~A ^ A is the same as A ^ ~A, because A ^ A = A; in other words A ^
>> ~A ^ A is a contradiction and thus can be ignored. The list of
>> assertions (A, ~A, A), on the other hand, means A.
>> ...
>
> By refusing to give up order, you are refusing to give up time and
> pretending that you aren't. If you can't operate without that
> dimension, don't pretend. "Sum" isn't conjunctive. You don't need to use
> lists either. Although it's not a fair trade, since I have less mysticism
> to offer, I'll trade some of mine for yours. Until you strip away
> everything that is not needed for a minimal logic, you won't know what you
> really need and you can't be credible about it (since you talk of
> consistency and contradictions, I must assume your basis is logic). Your
> assertions (A, ~A, A), by the way, mean (), not A, even if you were to
> accept the disjunctive operator that most people use to enable assertions.
>

You're right about "sum" being disjunctive. I don't know what I was thinking. But I don't get what you're trying to say about a minimal logic. Should set theory be stripped away? I guess you could do that if you think of a database as one big statement. Even if you did that, I still don't understand how you can avoid order unless the database is static. If the database can change, then the operation that changes it creates a new database. I suppose you could ignore the old database but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

> p
>
Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 04:18:06 CEST