Re: Objects and Relations

I realize now that BB has elevated to art, the ability to hide anything obvious that would undermine his authority in this NG. He automatically pinpoints anything that may potentially represent a serious contradiction, then he builds a straw man for that. (In this case me).

Question is once again where is the *intellectual honesty* and *sincerity* in that?

Below the proofs...

> >>If I am not mistaken, it is *grammar*. What I meant is that LegoBlock
> >>and Location concepts should be separated if LegoBlock is to be
> >>considered a relation. A relation *must* have a stable primary key.
> >>Location is not a stable primary key therefore it does not identify
> >>LegoBlock. Please be sincere.

> It is ironic. Above, Cimode insists on a far greater restriction than
> required by the RM.

According to BB's version of RM, stability for keys is not mandatory. Such leniance leads to acceptance of dynamic based keys such as location. If BB considered the logical consequence of that, he would have realized that the principle of stability in key selection has a direct impact on the respect or disrespect of the *mandatory* principe of *indiscernibility* which is not just about design.

The principle states that --there's no way whatsoever of distinguishing between two objects, then there aren't two objects but only one.--(CJ DATE)

Imagine 2 spheres of different sizes with the same center. If they are to be identified by their location XYZ then they would be indiscernible one from another. This is an abdurdity breaking all what RM stands for !

> Stability is an important design criterion for
> choosing a primary key. Whether one chooses a stable key, though, is a
> design tradeoff weighed against the other (sometimes conflicting) design
> criteria like familiarity, simplicity, and irreducibility.
Not just important. Stability is not just about *level of updatability in time*. Stability is about making sure, that during selection process that a primary key respects all mandatory principles IN TIME. The reason I consider stability as crucial is because I think it IS NOT OK to choose a key by while ignoring undiscernibility which is what you were heading to.

> >>I am trying to help you get another pov about RM that is way too wide
> >>to be locked up in BB's or my definitions.

> And then he claims his position is expansive rather than restricting.
That is called a trial of intension and a direct manipulation attempt. I spotted a reasoning that led to an absurdity and tried to warn you about. All was done with good intentions. Just make up your mind on what you observe.

That is all I want to say. Received on Thu Feb 15 2007 - 08:18:06 CST