Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:07:58 GMT
Message-ID: <igl6g.3049$A26.79503_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


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 - 13:07:58 CEST

Original text of this message