Re: It's pizza-time again
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 17:16:59 +0200
Message-ID: <40966278$0$562$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> From these lists I would infer:
> _thing_ = "material" noun.
> _fact_ = occured event, occurence
>
> Sounds like the distinction between TO BE and TO OCCUR
>
> No. You are not alone. :-)
>
>
>
> Should we avoid it because we don't know ?
>
> HELP ! Somebody HELP US!
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 17:16:59 +0200
Message-ID: <40966278$0$562$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
x wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>This was just an introduction to expand on my uneasy feeling >>towards equating 'thing' and 'fact'. >> >>In that context I also used a distinction: >> >>_thing_ : >>pizza, topping, table, clock, customer, onion, order, order-item. >>(now I am not so sure about the last two). >> >>_fact_ : >>"It's 4 p.m", "We are out of onions", >>"the customer at table 12 ordered 2 neapolitan icecreams".
>
> From these lists I would infer:
> _thing_ = "material" noun.
> _fact_ = occured event, occurence
>
> Sounds like the distinction between TO BE and TO OCCUR
Yes. How about "Leroy Brown is 6'4" ?
fact, no?
>>Am I the only one to use this distinction?
>
> No. You are not alone. :-)
>
>
>>Should I avoid it because it is flawed? >>Do we need it discussing database?
>
> Should we avoid it because we don't know ?
Excellent point.
> In First Order Logic there is a clear distinction between
> predicates and objects/functions.
Could you advice me on some reading?
> Another question:
> When discussing databases,
> do we need the concept of "logical consequence" ?
>
> The "logical consequence" of a set of clauses is defined
> taking into account ALL models that satisfies the clauses.
> When discussing databases, having more than ONE model
> would result in an ambiguous database.
>
>>Please help, I'm stuck!
>
> HELP ! Somebody HELP US!
Blub.
Blub. Received on Mon May 03 2004 - 17:16:59 CEST