Re: A Logical Model for Lists as Relations

Jay Dee wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > Jay Dee wrote:
> >
> >> vc wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jay Dee wrote:
> >>>
>
> >> >> What's 'bunch theory' ?
> >>
> >> As for my own: scalars are boolean, numbers, and characters. Data
> >> may be structured (Here we go down the rabbit hole!) as:
> >> a bunch (unpackaged and unindexed),
> >> a set (packaged and unindexed),
> >> a string (unpackaged and indexed), and
> >> a list (packaged and indexed).
> >>
> >> More terminology? Well, bunches and sets consist of elements, which
> >> has the meaning we're familiar with from sets. Sets are sets; they
> >> are a package of elements constructed with {} operator. , (comma)
> >> is the set union operator. Unpackaging a set - interpolating the
> >> contents of a set - yields a bunch, which also has a comma union
> >> operator. So
> >> a, b, c is a bunch
> >> {a, b, c} is a set.
> >>
> >> The empty bunch is null and the empty set is {null}.
> >
> >
> > I strongly suggest you avoid this use of null here, because it in no way
> > resembles the null used elsewhere in database theory.
>
> > Frankly, other than seemingly unimportant punctuation, I see no
> > difference between your set and your bunch. Is there an operational
> > difference?
>
> The whole point is that {} and , aren't punctuation; they're
> operators.

What's the operator ?

> Well, it's not my invention -- and I'm not arguing that this is a
> notation that everyone should embrace. Part of the point is that
> we're stumbling on each other's words.

Whoever's invention that is is not gonna find many converts unless he/she demonstrates why one should abandon the familiar and accepted language and start using the bunch of whatever. Received on Fri May 12 2006 - 05:04:13 CEST