Re: The naive test for equality

"David Cressey" <david.cressey_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:%MpIe.2973$ns.823_at_newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123129545.552826.188470_at_g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> David Cressey wrote:
>
>> > that's what I'm calling "the synonym problem".
>> > In this case, an equality test of the referents may require some kind
>> > of
>> > equivalence test of the references.
>>
>> Sure. I'd say "value" instead of "referent", but I get you.
>
> I'm going to stick with "referent" rather than "value". "Referent" is
> less
> specific than "value", and that's what I intend.

If you are talking about the relational model, one would expect to hear the usual first-order terms , like constants, variables, relations etc. instead of the fancy words like "reference" and "referent". What is the advantage of using the word "referent" instead of "value" [of some type] or element of some set ? In other words, how a "referent", when used in a first-order language, is different form an element of a set ?

Also, talking about comparing ["checking for equality"] language symbols ("references") is meaningless -- first order formulas, like A = B, are not true or false by themselves, they are so in some interpretation. The actual equality/equivalence relation is a set (if it exists) constructed from elements ("referents") of another set.(s).

>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Aug 05 2005 - 05:11:25 CEST