Re: Basic question?What 's the key if there 's no FD(Functional Dependencies)?

From: NENASHI, Tegiri <>
Date: 7 Nov 2006 10:10:19 -0800
Message-ID: <>

vc wrote:
> NENASHI, Tegiri wrote:
> [...]
> > The advantage is a lot: evolution from functional datamodel DAPLEX to
> > the functorial data mode: class is a category;
> The FDM does not appear to offer much in comparison to the old fdm
> except the obscure categorical jargon, fdm/NIAM in its turn does not
> offer much in comparison to the r.m. (see old fdm discussions in this
> group).
> >. Zinovy Diskin said that category theory
> Your favorite chap Zinovy's article are pretty hollow unless he wrote
> something more substantial elsewhere.

It is not very fair but you can be probably right that his articles are more easy for the beginners.

> The only interesting reference you've provided is the universal view
> updatability property. The author apparently knows what he is talking
> about, not jus tries his best to get published. I need to take a
> closer look though.
> > and Lawvere who solved the mystery of what natural number is
> Could you like explain this n.n thingy ? Don't we all know that the n.n
> are just 1,2,3, and so on ? Statements like that sort of undermine
> your credibility.

The natural number in the set theory can be build in many facons: von Neumann numerals, Zermelo numerals et cetera. Lawvere invented the natural number object in the category theory that is independent of the implemenation. It is a pure specification without not important details. There is a very good article by the Harvard professor Barry Mazur "When is one thing equal to some other thing?" that explains the natural number very well. But it can be very simple for you like the articles of Diskin, no ? ;)


Received on Tue Nov 07 2006 - 19:10:19 CET

Original text of this message