Re: The naive test for equality

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_ucantrade.com.NOTHERE> wrote in message news:ejipf1532eqtka5fe1854ogi6jhvfk6esm_at_4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:19:08 -0400, "VC" <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Of course not. Why would one want to use the same name for two different
>>entities [self-inflicted pain] ? If imagination is lacking, and one
>>prefers
>
> It can happen when two different points-of-view intersect.
> Realising that two apparently different entities are actually the same
> can be tricky, especially when they appear at first to be different.
>

Right. Presumably the real world object would be modelled by two entities with different sets of attributes (otherwise it would be easy to recognize that two, or more, entities represent the same object). Therefore, from the point of of the model itself, there are two different entities with two different names thus the dreaded "synonym problem" simply cannot occur..

> On the other side, realising that you are dealing not with
> identitites but distinct things -- particularly when the entities are
> similar -- can also be tricky.

Right. That's why modelling is an error and trial process.

>
>>to call an entity a Thing, one can use at least Thing1, Thing2,,, ad
>>infinitum., if needed., in order to avoid the homonym problem. Synonyms
>>are even easier, just use one, not two or more, names for the same
>>entity
>>and you should be all set.
>
> If you realise that you have such a situation.

Even if you don't, the error is not a naming problem (synonym/homonym and such) but rather a mistake in identifyng correctly the real world objects and their attributes of interest.

>
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 22:18:21 CEST