Re: Scalars & atomic values & variables

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message news:HfEJb.1$Sv3.112_at_news.oracle.com...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:bt71g8$ts5$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > Space (mathematics): A set of objects with functions that operate on the
> > objects, mapping them to other objects in the space.
>
> You meant "universe" (from Model theory) here, not space. A space is a
> universe that has addition operator. Members of a space obey certain
> addition properties.
>
I'm figuring that these terms have no absolute meaning -- that have meaning based on what we define them to be. There are definitions of space that are objects and functions, so I'm not the first to use that. I work with a database from IBM named "Universe" so I opted not to use that term. It also seems way to large that way when the idea is that we are putting limits on the space by exactly specifying the objects and functions in them.

> > Scalar value (mathematics): An object in a space for which there is no
> > operation in that space that takes a single operand and maps that object
> to
> > two or more other objects (decomposes the object), which can then be
> rebuilt
> > into the original object with another operation in the space.
>
> I was unable find definition of scalar value in Math World.
>
Scalars in mathematics are often real numbers because the spaces against which they are defined gives us real numbers as scalars. Again, I defined the concept with what makes sense to me. The question is whether these definitions make sense for our purposes, and, if so, then they show that talking about scalars in database theory is rarely useful.

Thanks. --dawn Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 20:48:35 CET