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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:59:15 -0500
Message-ID: <XNj6a.269$>

"--CELKO--" <> wrote in message
> >> Ah, but the very action of picking one can up identifies the can.
> It becomes
> the can in my hand and then the can on the scale. It becomes
> identified as separate and different from all other cans. <<
> It is not identified; it is distinquished. If you mark it

How do you mark it without first identifying it as an item to mark?

> >> If the cans were not identifiable, you would not be able to
> knowingly pick one or to knowingly grasp one. <<
> Unh? This is like saying that I cannot buy a box of cookies, reach in
> and eat one unless every cookie has a serial number stamped on it and
> I know those serial numbers.

No, it is saying that if you lack the sensory ability to perceive cookies, you won't know whether you have picked one up or eaten one even if you have.

Serial numbers are totally irrelevant to the discussion as is everything you have ever contributed to a discusssion, Joe.

> >> How do you know whether you are weighing cans if you cannot
> identify any? For the time the cans are on the scale, they are
> identifiable and are distinguishable from all other cans both on and
> off the scale. <<
> Again, no. The bag -- as a collection --

Joe, the bag we are discussing is a bag. Will that be paper or plastic?

> >> If you cannot identify cans, how do you know which cans you have
> already counted and which cans remain to count? <<
> That is the whole point! I have not counted them!

Then you are not even participating in the discussion. You are ignoring it instead and posting random meaningless gibberish--as is your wont. Received on Mon Feb 24 2003 - 07:59:15 CET

Original text of this message