Re: Key attributes with list values was Re: What are the differences ...KEY

Brian Selzer wrote:
[snip]

> Marshall Spight wrote:

When I have arbitrary sets of numbers say and I want to use those sets in some form of manipulation I can, of course, quite happily state them mathematically something of the nature:

x = {1, 3, 8}, y = {2, 4, 7}, z = {x, y}, etc.

This is simple assignment, and gives my sets a label, or identity if you will, so that I may go ahead and use these descriptions in future manipulations without referring to the sets extensionally.

Surely this is identity (an artifice of course, but valuable here nonetheless) and set theory working in perfect harmony at the heart of mathematics?

Now, this methodology clearly violates the information principle-centric view of using attributes only to refer to things. Yet it is exactly the sort of thing I want to do with the data I work with (genetic and other bioinformatics data), in spite of the cognitive dissonance it seems to be causing me (yes,trying to reconcile what currently seem to be equally arguable but opposing standpoints is hurting my head ).

Perhaps there is an obvious hole in this logic, which I'm currently missing due to some sort of antiprocess on my part. Received on Mon Feb 27 2006 - 05:18:19 CET