Re: c.d.theory glossary - RELATION

From: x <x-false_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:39:04 +0300
Message-ID: <40927260$1_at_post.usenet.com>


  • Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40926e5d$0$562$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> x wrote:
>>
> > Do some of the _facts_ about a (real or fantasized) world
> > tell something about _things_ in a (real or fantasized) world ?
>
> I really don't know. Thinking out loud:
> Say we have a history of axioms, and we would create a database
> for searching purposes - we'ld probably have no use for it
> if it didn't somehow represent persons or documents.
>
> An empty database - would it qualify as a proper database?
> A database without any facts about things - would it qualify?

Sorry.
I said SOME of ALL possible facts about the world. I was not talking about a particular database.

If the facts tell nothing about things in the world, then a relational database would be worthless (empty) :-)

> > If yes, those _things_ are explicitly or implicitly represented
> > in relational model ? And by what ? Why not otherwise.
>
> Assuming yes about the first question:
> 'represent' would be 'explicit', imho.
> By what? By the propositions (by means of the predicates).
>
> As I said: just thinking out loud.

fact: John likes Mary.
Which proposition represents John ?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  • Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Fri Apr 30 2004 - 17:39:04 CEST

Original text of this message