Re: Plural or singular table names

Bob Badour wrote:

> Apparently, Larry did not recognize the debunking of his argument.

I qualified it by saying "I think mainly it's a religious argument." Or, as you put it, an aesthetic argument.

That being said, for those who ARE seeking a logical justifcation for one form over the other, I presented the argument that makes sense for me. My saying that I had not seen it debunked was not with regard to whether other equally good (or equally aesthethic) arguments (or even simple opinions) exist. What I meant (but perhaps didn't make clear) was that I did not know of a counterargument that shows my line of thinking to be fallacious.

Or perhaps you're right, and I -did- miss the debunking of my argument.

> That said, I like Tony Douglas's suggestion to choose a convention to
> encourage people to think of relations in terms of the predicate calculus

I also liked it.

> Any claim to have an objective argument for one's prejudices and preferences
> is bunk.

Prejudices sure, but preferences I'd disagree with. I have lots of preferences that are the result of deduction. But this is just digressing into semantics.

Larry Coon
University of California Received on Fri Sep 05 2003 - 02:03:08 CEST