Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:22:12 GMT
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> Without looiking up the axioms themselves, I map the number 1 to a single
> sheep and then with addition, I add in sheep. It's all about sheep.
I disagree - it's all about turtles, stacked up on an elephant. Or maybe vice versa. But in either case, there are no sheep. Unless it's the ones the turtles are dreaming about.
> > Right, but how exactly does one determine the applicability of
> > to, say, physics? In other words, what axioms does any branch of
> > have that correlate to something in the real world?
> I think that is where Wol's line of discussion was. As far as I'm
> concerned, they correlate as metaphors when they are used and then they
> are used for that which they work for. So, the correlation is very
> pragmatic. There is no proof of such a correlation, but you can disprove
> exact correlation just as you can come up with a fault in a metaphor.
> Somehow I don't think I'm tapping into your questions right 'cause I think
> you and I agree on these points and are arguing anyway -- otherwise,
> asking a qusetion for the answer, where do you think we have a
> in this area? --dawn
Uh... I object. By golly, I object. (flashback to an old Bloom County cartoon with Opus in court, pounding on the desk with a gavel saying "By golly I object" repeatedly...)
Anyway, you're right - I don't think we actually disagree with that. Systems development is unnatural, and discards detail because the real world is unautomatable. We can only model and simulate tiny segments of it, and my assertion is that those models gain far more power from the nature of the model than from correlation with the real world. That correlation is nice, and certainly there must be a mapping... but that balance point is what we're arguing about, not the points above.