Re: A Normalization Question

neo55592_at_hotmail.com (Neo) wrote in message news:<4b45d3ad.0407201356.39d4c09d_at_posting.google.com>...
>
> For example, while RM can represent strings and symbols without
> redundancy at the logical level, it is rather impractical, but not
> impossible.

The RM says *nothing* about *how* data should be *represented* in the same way that the lambda calculus and Turing machines say nothing about *how* languages should be *implemented*.

Implementation is an entirely orthogonal issue.

> The following example (carried out far enough), is even more
> impractical, if not nearly impossible. Try representing the following
> in RM without NULLs or redundant things:
>
> thingA: john take final
> thingB: john receive 95
> thingC: thingA cause thingB
>
> In effect thingC would be:
> (john take final) cause (john receive 95)

causal relationship name causing event caused event

thingC                      thingA           thingB


event name    subject    verb       object
------------------------------------------
thingA        john       take       final
thingB        john       receive    95

Feel free to "compress" this as you like, but please don't don't expect me to enter into an argument about it: you really do seem to be confused about the distinction between representation and denotation.

• Ralph