Re: MV Keys

"Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message news:_DBNf.17305$rL5.10315_at_newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote in message news:du6h9v$8g4$1_at_emma.aioe.org...
> >
> > "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message
> > news:qkvNf.36307$Jd.30961_at_newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> >> Then there's no difference between a varchar and an int. Both are
lists
> >> whose elements (under most circumstances) do not belong to the universe
> >> of
> >> discourse, and in both cases it is the permutations of those elements
> >> that
> >> do.
> >
> > One could choose to represent int with *sets* instead of lists. :-)
> > For example as a pair of sets with cardinals p,q for the number p-q.

> Possibly. One can also choose to believe politicians--or used car
salesmen,
> for that matter. By the way, wouldn't the cardinals above be ints?
Aren't
> you representing an int with an int?

No. An int with sets or lists or pebbles or whatever. What cardinals ? Just some pebbles. :-)

> >> I think there's a fundamental difference between a varchar or an int
and
> > an
> >> abstract data type whose elements do belong to the universe.
> >
> > There is a difference between the stuff and the representation of the
> > stuff.

> There is a difference between stuff and structure.

They are two distinct English words.

> Isn't an ADT essentially
> what we would call a data structure outside of the OO paradigm? Maybe I
> should give the glossary maintainer a definition for scalar:

> Scalar value, synonymous with atomic value: a value that cannot be
resolved
> into components which are also part of the universe of discourse.

And possible representation : ... ? Received on Thu Mar 02 2006 - 14:36:42 CET