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@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 - 10:16:59 CDT