Re: The word "symbol"

From: VC <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:07:12 -0400
Message-ID: <SaOdnSR0ZOmys5zeRVn-oQ@comcast.com>

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:4301180b$0$11063$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> VC wrote:

>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>>VC wrote:
>>>>mAsterdam 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.
>

> "So" would summarize _your_ factgathering and reasoning, right?

>
>> What are the other "nice topics" in the RM which are not formal ?
>

> You are suggesting RM is synonymous to
> database theory. If it is to you - ok with me - don't
> bother to read my stuff, my contributions only rarely
> touch RM.

OK.

>

> To restate what I thought was already clear:
> to me they are not synonyms. Emaple: one pet topic
> of mine is 'dirty data': how to make sure a database
> contains reliable data. Formally this problem can
> simply be excluded by way of the closed world assumption.
> Is the topic therefore outside the realm of database theory?

I believe it is. The database has no clue as to, say, whether the person named "Joe" actually lives in London. The database can ensure consistency amongst stored facts but there is no way it can verify facts like the one above. Therefore, one cannot guarantee a total absense of dirty data by purely database means. Of course, trivial checks like "age between 1 and 100" or whatever can easily be enforced, but again the database is of no help if the human enters "27" instead of "72".

If you believe otherwise, show how one would solve this problem.

> No. Just - at least partly - outside the realm of
> the formal aspects.

>
>>>>>[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).
>

> Beyond my (as yet non-confirmed or rejected) assertion
> "Your interest in databases is in the purely formal
> aspects", which commonly accepted definition
> are you talking about?
> Please be somewhat specific.

Firstly, let's forget both about my definitions as well as about trying to find out whether those definitions are commonly accepted or not. I withdraw my statement about the definitions being commonly accepted because trying to discuss this point is not very interesting (to me). Secondly, your assertion "Your interest in databases is in the purely formal aspects" is odd since you cannot possibly know what my "interest in databases" might be (you cannot read my mind). Therefore, I'll ignore the assertion as irrelevant.

>
>> I am curious how semiotics "gives handles to provide content" for the RM 
>> ? Always eager to learn from my betters,  please oblige.
>

> There was no midi file attached to your post.
> Yet I don't like it's tone.

The phrase is intentionally ambiguous. It can be interpreted in two ways:

1. "Put up or shut up". Or " you have no clue what you are talking about"
2. Since I do not see how "semiotics give[s] handles to provide content, context, meaning and use of formal systems", I defer to those who possess such knowledge and am wiling to partake of such knowledge. A facetious way of asking the original question, really [" how "semiotics give[s] handles to provide content, context, meaning and use of formal systems"].

What interpretation is more a propos is actually up to you. Recall, instead of answering my first question about a connection between semiotics and database theory ["for example ?"], you've started theorising on my hypothetical interests in the database theory, i.e. you did not wish or could not answer my question.

Now, can you kindly provide such an answer/example ? Received on Mon Aug 15 2005 - 19:07:12 CDT