Re: Fraud Number 3: U-Gene
Date: 21 Jun 2006 02:19:49 -0700
Bob Badour wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> >>>But I'm not sure how you could confuse an attribute with a relvar.
> >>As I stated B4 if their definition are too similar to be clearly
> >>distinguished..It's an open highway for unexperienced audiences to
> >>confuse both. This is the last explanation I will give on that
> >>point...I have already answered above and I will stop reexplaining....
> > But a variable is time varying; an attribute is, for want of a better
> > word, an attribute of a relation *value*, so it can't change. I simply
> > don't see how this confusion can come about.
> But an attribute is a variable in the sense that predicate calculus uses
> 'variable' even if one cannot use imperative statements to change it.
Again a variable be it an elementary relvar (attribute), is not varying. Variable is a value holder whith its content extracted from a domain (values) that vary over time. I have proved that point with an analogy and a question, Tony D has refuses to respond to because it constitutes a paradow to his definition that proves him wrong.
> >>*change* is a verb that leads to confusion in defining the relationship
> >>between variables and values. *change* supposes a modification of
> >>state which. I prefer the definition of variable as a *value holder*
> >>which give a much more clearer indication .
> > I don't see that. Values never change. Which value is indicated by a
> > variable can.
> >>You are confusing domain and type...
> > I'm not confusing them; I'm saying that I don't see a need for the
> > separation between them that you're describing. Can you say why you
> > would separate them in such a way ?
> I have no opinion on the remainder.
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 11:19:49 CEST