Re: Basic question?What 's the key if there 's no FD(Functional Dependencies)?
From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 6 Nov 2006 10:56:55 -0800
Message-ID: <1162839415.319934.236060_at_f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> I think that meaning is pretty complex concept.
> Let me simplify things and say that meaning has an intension and an
> extension.
> If we speak about a meaning of the relation then (if we can speak about
> relation's meaning ?) we need extension. Maybe we can associate the
> predicats,
> maybe interpretation of the predicates, truth and false and the real
> world
> to see what is truth there. RM doesn't speak about the real world, the
> attributes,
> the entities etc.
> So my point is: let define meaning of the relation first - then I can
> see preciselly
> what paol c want to say, maybe he is in right.
It looks as if the eternal dilemna of definition/meaning of relations is getting back on track again. In fact, a pretty sterile debate. Two schools of thought seem to dominate. People who define relations as ensemblist combinatory functions according to their transformational properties and the one who define relations according as set of values that populate them and therefore describe them. The latter is a result of computing theory trying to force math abstraction in leading to formulate the axiom that all functions are necessary relations. The first approach OTOH is a total negation of such axiom.
Date: 6 Nov 2006 10:56:55 -0800
Message-ID: <1162839415.319934.236060_at_f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
vldm10 wrote:
> NENASHI, Tegiri wrote:
> > vldm10 wrote:
> > > NENASHI, Tegiri wrote:
> > > > vldm10 wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > as far as I understand math a relation doesn't have meaninig
> > > >
> > > > Is it that you are serious ? The relation is a set. You do not
> > > > comprehend what the set is ?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tegi
> > >
> > > don't think that the comprehension is the same as meaning.
> > >
> > > Vladimir Odrljin
> >
> > You like to play with words and pretend not undertsand the words ? This
> > is a game you must play all alone, I am sorry.
> >
> > --
> > Tegi
>
> I think that meaning is pretty complex concept.
> Let me simplify things and say that meaning has an intension and an
> extension.
> If we speak about a meaning of the relation then (if we can speak about
> relation's meaning ?) we need extension. Maybe we can associate the
> predicats,
> maybe interpretation of the predicates, truth and false and the real
> world
> to see what is truth there. RM doesn't speak about the real world, the
> attributes,
> the entities etc.
> So my point is: let define meaning of the relation first - then I can
> see preciselly
> what paol c want to say, maybe he is in right.
It looks as if the eternal dilemna of definition/meaning of relations is getting back on track again. In fact, a pretty sterile debate. Two schools of thought seem to dominate. People who define relations as ensemblist combinatory functions according to their transformational properties and the one who define relations according as set of values that populate them and therefore describe them. The latter is a result of computing theory trying to force math abstraction in leading to formulate the axiom that all functions are necessary relations. The first approach OTOH is a total negation of such axiom.
My two cents...
> Vladimir Odrljin
Received on Mon Nov 06 2006 - 19:56:55 CET