Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 09:21:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4459ab3f$0$31648$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
>
> Two driod who shouldn't misinterpret each other is one example within
> the universe of discourse. They are not the universe of discourse.
> Maybe it is easier if you to specify 'real examples' and not engage in
> un real ones.
>
>
> How does the app/droid know this? It is a standard/convention?
>
>
> Your question are too hard to answer. I think it easer for me to let
> you go ahead and classify relationships :)
>
>
>
>
> Don't worry, we will go through each of them again :)
>
>
>
>
> Hmm, then I will have trouble explaining the thingy thing to you.
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 09:21:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4459ab3f$0$31648$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Neo wrote:
>>>>Can you give 'real' examples? >>> >>>What is real vs unreal? >> >>'real' as in relevant to the current universe of discourse, which is two droids who should not misinterpret each other (for me that is a purely imaginary scenery, I don't work with droids - hence the quotes).
>
>
> Two driod who shouldn't misinterpret each other is one example within
> the universe of discourse. They are not the universe of discourse.
> Maybe it is easier if you to specify 'real examples' and not engage in
> un real ones.
Your quoting style is confusing, even to you. I asked for a examples in a setting familiar to you (you made it up). You went off on a bar-filosofical tangent. I restated the question, made it more explicit. Aside: an example from another familiar setting is ok to. This time I'm /not/ going to repair the damage done by your quoting habits.
>>>>relationship(john, like, mary). >>> >>>In your last example, it appears you have choosen to classify "john >>>like mary" as a relationship. I say appears as I am not sure which rule >>>you are applying (try replacing each name with an arbitrary letter and >>>see if you can determine the relationship between them ie. a(b,c,d) >>>). Is it a fixed/conventional rule that if a function has 3 parameters, >>>then the function's name is to classify of all the parameters as a >>>whole? >> >>Not AFAIK. (I took it you meant 'if a predicate has arity 3').
>
>
> How does the app/droid know this? It is a standard/convention?
No, it has to be told or be made conventional by the droid designer. So: what does he need to know about it, specifically, and for what purpose?
>>>But more importantly, I wouldn't actually classify relationships for >>>two reasons: >>>1) It is something that should be derived. >> >>1.1) Why? >>1.2) From what? How? >>1.3.1) Anyway, we have derived somethings and ... what, base things? >>1.3.2) How do we distinguish between derived and non-derived?
>
>
> Your question are too hard to answer. I think it easer for me to let
> you go ahead and classify relationships :)
>
>
>>Context matters. Don't do this, I don't like it at all.
>
>
> Don't worry, we will go through each of them again :)
>
>
>>>[what is ???] Can you clarify this? >> >>Not really.
>
>
> Hmm, then I will have trouble explaining the thingy thing to you.
You mean dbd.thing? :-)
What is it that 'person' and 'colour' have in common what the droids needs information about? Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 09:21:06 CEST