Re: A Normalization Question
Date: 17 Jul 2004 21:44:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4b45d3ad.0407172044.26b7144a_at_posting.google.com>
> > 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.
> 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 Sun Jul 18 2004 - 06:44:50 CEST