Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:32:42 GMT
Message-ID: <_26zg.74003$>

"paul c" <> wrote in message news:yw4zg.281148$IK3.258613_at_pd7tw1no...

> Brian Selzer wrote:

>> "paul c" <> wrote in message
>> news:zTOyg.269253$IK3.233927_at_pd7tw1no...
>>> Brian Selzer wrote:
>>>> "paul c" <> wrote in message 
>>>> news:g9Nyg.263082$iF6.250988_at_pd7tw2no...
>>>>> Brian Selzer wrote:
>>>>>> What's the point of a database if it doesn't reflect some aspect of 
>>>>>> reality. ...
>>>>> To talk precisely about whatever we want to talk about.  Nothing more. 
>>>>> Doesn't need to be real.
>>>> Agreed.  But even a conceived universe subsumes certain absolutes, such 
>>>> as time.
>>> In that case, the statements in the database should talk about time, 
>>> ie., aspects of time.  These are different from statements about the 
>>> time it takes the database to say something.

>> There can be no discussion without time. Relational assignment cannot
>> exist without the concepts of before and after. And the truth of a
>> statement belonging to the database state that existed before an
>> assignment depend on the circumstances that obtain before the assignment,
>> which may no longer remain after.
> No, it doesn't depend on 'circumstances'.  Assuming variables, as you are, 
> the truth of a statement depends on the value of the relation that is 
> assigned to a variable.

I don't understand. If I make a true statement, "I am at work.," and then drive home, then that statement is no longer true because the circumstances changed. Consequently, "work" must be changed to "home" in order for the statement to remain true.

> p Received on Sun Jul 30 2006 - 19:32:42 CEST

Original text of this message