Re: The word "symbol"

Marshall Spight wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Marshall Spight wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we have stumbled upon the only way to save this thread:
> > > fashion models! So much more interesting than data models.
> >
> > Are they more interesting before or after they are airbrushed? Are
> > they more interesting when they are or are not talking? What is it for
> > which they are models? What does the term "model" mean when talking
> > about a "fashion model"?
>
> It's of course better if they're not talking. Actually, since those
> women are so thin, I always figured it was "model" as in "scale model."

excellent!

>
> > > The person whose name is symbolized by the sequence of characters
> > > 'M' 'a' 'r' 's' 'h' 'a' 'l' 'l'
> > > (which is a list, not a set.)
> >
> > an ordered list, even (or do you consider that redundant?)
>
> Not at all! The formal term is "sequence" as distinct from set, but
> I just use the term "list".

when someone says "sequence" I assume ordering, if they say "multiset" or "bag" I assume no implied ordering, but with "list" I figure it could be either ordered or not. Is that a fair understanding of the terms?

>
> > by the way, having zipped through recent messages in this thread, I
> > think going back to the glossary on what "we" mean when we use the term
> > "relation" in this forum might help clarify some confusion. Then
> > again, maybe not -- bring on the fashion models.
>
> I'm still using "subset of a product of sets."

me too

> Also recall that we
> agree (last I checked :-) on the relative insignificance of
> product-of-ordered-sets vs. product-of-named-sets.

Yes. In fact, I am settled on that one with the last round on it here.  I will hopefully not unsettle myself again the next time I read about how inferior any model is that orders attributes by using numbers rather than (or in addition to) naming them with words. cheers! --dawn

>
> Marshall
Received on Thu Aug 18 2005 - 13:53:40 CEST