Re: A statement on dbdebunk.

Erwin wrote:
> anithsen_at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Fabian has already explained it in his article "Something To Call One's
> > > Own" which seems to be in the zipped free archives in his site.
> > > http://www.dbdebunk.com/content2001.html
> > > For some of his relevant online references, see:
> > > http://www.inconcept.com/JCM/May2003/Pascal.html
> > > http://www.inconcept.com/JCM/October2003/Pascal.htm
> >
> > These might be of interest too:
> > http://www.dbazine.com/ofinterest/oi-articles/pascal1
> > http://www.tdan.com/sms_issue28.htm
>
> It is precisely because I've read all or certainly most of those that I
> am left with the question I asked :
>
> How can it at the same time be true that model X is formal, model Y is
> in some way isomorphic to model X, and yet model Y is *IN*formal, i.e.
> very specifically *NOT* formal ?

It looks like you gave undue importance to the usage "1:1 mapping" which he seems to merely mean "corresponding" and went on to consider two distinct levels of representation to be somehow isomorphic.

Conceptual models are informal, since it involves external predicates or user interpretations.
http://www.tdan.com/sms_issue26.htm Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 16:46:46 CEST