# Re: Fraud Number 3: U-Gene

Date: 21 Jun 2006 05:09:21 -0700

Message-ID: <1150891761.389298.81770_at_y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>

Tony D wrote:

*> Cimode wrote:
*

> > > I think we are at cross purposes on the definition of variable here.

*> > > Variables come in (at least) two distinct kinds : the 3GL kind, which
**> > > is basically a name for an updateable bit of store, or the
**> > > mathematical/propositional logic place holder kind. So far, I've been
**> > > going on the basis that relvars are of the 3GL kind. Is this merely a
**> > > Tutorial D-ism ?
**>
**> > Variable and values are defined at logical abstract level not at
**> > implementation language definition level.
**> > Defining variables at implementation level produces anything but
**> > confusion...
**>
**> This is rapidly becoming circular. Can you accept that the term
**> variable is used in two different ways, *whatever level of abstraction
**> you may be talking about* ? Can you pin down, once and for all, which
**> sense of the word variable you are using ? Clearly, Tutorial D uses the
**> term "relvar" or "relation variable" in the sense of a 3GL kind of
**> updateable variable. Are you using "relvar" in the sense of a
**> mathematical, non-updateable variable ?
*

I know since the beginning that you are defining variable at implementation level. I warned you about it but you don't listen.

Variable can be defined and manipulated soundly only at logical level. Manipulating and defining them at implementation such as 3GL level leads only to confusion. You don't define logical models principles through defining implementation. Onlyt the opposite works.. Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 14:09:21 CEST