Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:10:27 -0600
Message-ID: <cot23d$m4p$>

"Alfredo Novoa" <> wrote in message
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:44:44 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis"
> <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:
> >1) Has anyone provided any better logic related to the 1GB than that
> >provided by Date?
> Logic is correct or incorrect.

LOL. Of course, you are correct, sir.

> > If not, I would think we could talk about this as
> >intuition or hypothesis that there is a mistake rather than anything
> >resembling a proof, right?
> This is tautology:
> If types are not variables, it is wrong to equate types and variables.

OK, this is the point I really don't get. It sounds like the 1GB is concerned with using an OO Class to specify a Relation type. Then we get into the further issue that in relational theory we used to use the word "relation" for both a "relation" and a "relational variable" but we are now more sophisticated and we (sometimes) remember to use the coined term "relvar" instead. Is the issue that in OO there is no new coined term to distinquish between a Relation specified as a type and a Relational variable? If so, the issue is semantics and not logic, right? Or am I confused on where the confusion lies? --dawn

> A <> B => ~ ( A = B )
> There is no intuition or hypothesis here.
> Regards
Received on Sat Dec 04 2004 - 20:10:27 CET

Original text of this message