Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational

You can weigh them without counting them, but you won't be able to derive a count from the weight if you have never counted any. Think about it.

You are talking nonsense. If this nebulous example is the heart of your argument, it's really not very strong. It's nothing more than handwaving and a desperate attempt to put words in my mouth.

If multisets have any benefit to even start compensating for the loss of logical identity and for the loss of physical independence, you certainly have never presented it.

"Steve Kass" <skass_at_drew.edu> wrote in message news:b35i1o$2u0$1_at_slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> If you can't weigh things without counting them first, I
> highly recommend you don't try keep things in bags. This
> little example is at the heart of why I think bags (when
> appropriate) are a better model for some things, but they
> are only appropriate to a user who perceives the real world
> as a place where things can be weighed without first being
> counted.
>
>
> >
> >
> It's interesting how you are trying to mischaracterize Date as using
> primitive technology. Multisets are demonstrably more primitive than
> relations--simply from the fact that they rely on physical location. You
> are the one promoting the use of "Roman numerals and shells".
>
>
> I'm only mischaracterizing Date to the extent that I may well
> be misunderstanding what he meant to say. And it's not surprising
> that we reach different characterizations of his writing, if the
> way you interpret words also leads you to believe I'm promoting
> roman numerals and shells.
>
> SK
>
>
>
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
> >If you cannot identify the cans of tuna, how do you place them on the
scale?
> >And before you can calculate a count from a weight, you must first count
> >identifiable cans then weigh them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Sat Feb 22 2003 - 02:14:39 CET