Re: Can relvars be dissymetrically decomposed? (vadim and x insight demanded on that subject)
Date: 15 Jul 2006 02:09:10 -0700
paul c wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
> > <health warning>
> > OK, this thread has been sitting here for a few days with not much
> > action, and gently intriguing me. Nobody else who really knows about
> > this stuff, so at risk of betraying cluelesseness about some of this
> > stuff, I'd like to kick some discussion off. I may misinterpret some
> > terms, so if I do and go off on a tangent be gentle. Ok ?
> > </health warning>
> > ...
> as one who often takes things too far, eg., farther than i think Codd
> intended, i would defend that approach even if it means prying open
> doors that he didn't completely close, like this one, making domains out
> of relations and my pet, rva's which if i try to understand Codd's
> information principle in a strict way might reasonably be said to be
> verboten even though there are at least a couple of big names such as
> Darwen and Date who state that certain rva's are valid in rt. the
> reason i think doing this is valid is that from a theory point of view i
> think some effort deserves to be made when describing a theory to
> determine its boundaries, eg., where does rt theory end and domain or
> type theory begin, not to mention whether 'percolation' is possible if a
> domain-defining relvar changes, but what's been written so far doesn't
> have enough meat for me, like examples, plus it uses words like
> ensemblist that are way over my head and sound like they admit
> potentially a lot of fuzziness. i think Cimode could try to qualify or
> characterize what he has said or give some examples that the rest of us
> could take pot shots at.
I do not believe we are at boundary of RM here but at a better understanding of RM through use of different math tool. Ensemblist math certainly is not a fuzzy concept it is pure math. The axiom of ensemble of parties has not been proven wrong yet and is considered by math community as sound as 1+1=2. As for examples, I do not see exactly what kind of examples you expect? I was under the clear impression the example provided was more than sufficient to understand the problem. thanks for clarifying your request so I may adjust to your level of abstraction.
Received on Sat Jul 15 2006 - 11:09:10 CEST