Re: A Normalization Question

> > I claim the string 'brown' is a fact.
> > 'brown is composed of b, r, o, w, n in that order.
>
> That is a fact, but it is not represented by the occurrences of the string
> "brown".

I contend that 'brown' is equivalent to 'brown is composed of b, r, o, w, n in that order'. If I show a child 'brown' and ask him if it is composed of b, r, o, w, n in that order, he would reply yes!

> This is demonstrated by the fact that if you remove all
> occurrences of the string "brown" from the database then it is still
> logically derivable from the contents of the database.

Hmm, please demo how one can still derive this fact if one removes all occurances of 'brown' or its equivalents such as 'brown is composed of b, r, o, w, n in that order' from a db?

> The reason for this is of course that it is a tautology
> and can therefore always be logically derived, even from an empty database.

One can't derive that 'brown is composed of b, r, o, w, n' from an empty db; but a demo could convince me otherwise. Received on Sat Jul 17 2004 - 23:44:50 CDT