Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:22:30 -0800
On Feb 14, 5:11 pm, b..._at_badour.net wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:07 am, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > An example of BB's incoherence...
> > JOG states:
> > << 1) Lego blocks are /not/ the same. They always have a different
> > location attribute.
> > 2) Hence their x,y,z position attribute always identifies them.
> > 3) However this identifer is very hard to record and keep track of,
> > even though it exists. >>.
> > Bob Badour responds:
> > <<To amplify, the location might be familiar and perhaps even unique,
> > but
> > it is neither simple nor stable. >>
> > In other words, it can not be a primary key. This is totally
> > incoherent. BB *amplifies* a theory by stating its exact opposite.
> > Location is not a key for LegoBlock. Period.
> Location can be a key -- it has uniqueness which is the only hard
> requirement. However, if one chooses it as a key, one chooses all of
> the problems inherent to unstable, compound keys. The question
> becomes: Do the benefits of familiarity outweigh the costs of those
In other words, location is not a primary key. Can't you recognize that? Where is intellectual honesty? Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 17:22:30 CET