Re: The word "symbol"
From: VC <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:30:34 -0400
Message-ID: <nIidnVABxuDJ9GDfRVn-qA_at_comcast.com>
>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>>vc wrote:
>>>>David Cressey wrote:
>>>>>VC wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>When we confine ourselves to the realm of formal structures of which
>>>>database theory is an example, ...
>>>
>>>Ah! This creates perspective. I do not share this opinion.
>>>To me there is a part of database theory that deals with formal
>>>structures.
>>
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean ?
>>
>>>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:30:34 -0400
Message-ID: <nIidnVABxuDJ9GDfRVn-qA_at_comcast.com>
"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:42fd50e3$0$11068$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> VC wrote:
>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>>vc wrote:
>>>>David Cressey wrote:
>>>>>VC wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>When we confine ourselves to the realm of formal structures of which
>>>>database theory is an example, ...
>>>
>>>Ah! This creates perspective. I do not share this opinion.
>>>To me there is a part of database theory that deals with formal
>>>structures.
>>
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean ?
>>
> > Your interest in databases is in the purely formal aspects, no? > That is one, but not my main area of nice topics in database theory. > Is that so difficult?
So you claim that, say, the relational model is only partially formal. What are the other "nice topics" in the RM which are not formal ?
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Semiotics is not applied to the study of formal systems
>>>per se but it does give handles to provide content,
>>>context, meaning and use of formal systems.
>>
>>
>> For example ?
> > Why? Any example would by definiton be > outside what you choose to be database theory.
Forget about my definitions (although they are not really mine but rather
commonly accepted).
I am curious how semiotics "gives handles to provide content" for the RM ?
Always eager to learn from my betters, please oblige.
Received on Sat Aug 13 2005 - 05:30:34 CEST