Re: Fraud Number 3: U-Gene
Date: 21 Jun 2006 05:30:45 -0700
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > 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..
> Could you answer the question ? "Yes" or "no" will do fine.
As you have not bothered answering a similar question about the bus analogy and variables, why would I comply? Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 14:30:45 CEST