Jon Heggland wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>paul c wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>>
>>>>The problem with SP { S#, {P#} } in base relations is it brushes up
>>>>against the information principle. It introduces a 'thing' that one
>>>>cannot discuss as a simple value, and that 'thing' is a set of parts.
>>>>...
>>>
>>>Interesting you should say that. I thought it was adhering quite well
>>>to the IP, more so than the tack the practical people I've known would
>>>likely have taken.
>>
>>I said it brushes up against it. It doesn't violate it in the sense that
>>one can still refer to a set {P#} by the value of the entire set. But
>>that's an awkward way to refer to it -- especially when the value can
>>change with time.
>
> I'd say that's exactly how you do refer to a value---by the value
> itself. If the "value" has a name, and can change with time, it seems
> more like a variable, not a value.
I am not sure what your point is. {P#} is a component of a variable,
which means it can change with time.
Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 06:07:58 CDT
