dawn wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:14:12 -0800, Mark Johnson
> > <102334.12_at_compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >>This whole 'flat' debate is nonsense too. Write a database down in its
> > >>mathematical form, devoid of tables
> > >
> > >It is flat. A relation has no structure, unless there is some ordering
> > >among the attributes. The attributes are supposed to be in no
> > >particular order. The entries/instances/tuples are supposed to be in
> > >no particular order. That's just definitional.
> >
> > It is n-dimensional, one dimension per attribute. The three
> > dimensions of Euclidean space are not in any particular order either.
>
> Wol & JOG had an exchange about "dimension" in the comments at the end
> of
> http://www.tincat-group.com/mewsings/2006/02/model-behind-interface.html
> where I contributed the following:
>
> "The word dimension is overloaded, so JOG is right that using the
> mathematical definition, an n-tuple is n-dimensional. Using a more
> typical physical definition or a programming language Array definition
> of dimension as Wol has done, it would make sense to call such tables
> 2D, given that each value can be accessed with its [i][j]. This
> misunderstanding crops up all the time, and I fault those with the
> mathematical definition...for this one because I think they really do
> understand the alternative use of the term, while the programmers don't
> always know the mathematical definition. There, have I settled that one
> for all time?"
>
> I suspect the answer is "of course not." Cheers! --dawn
If we all just said what we meant instead of using lazy ambiguous
terminology we'd be half way to communicating successfully. The other
side of the coin, getting people to interpret what is actually written
in accordance with its intended meaning is a whole different matter. I
believe Doug Englebart has a lot to say on this sort of matter with his
DKR's.
Received on Tue Feb 21 2006 - 21:34:28 CST
