Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 15 Feb 2007 06:18:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1171549086.096276.64600_at_v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
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
> It is ironic. Above, Cimode insists on a far greater restriction than
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
> Stability is an important design criterion for
> >>I am trying to help you get another pov about RM that is way too wide
> And then he claims his position is expansive rather than restricting.
> >>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.
> 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.
> 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.
> >>to be locked up in BB's or my definitions.
That is called a trial of intension and a direct manipulation
That is all I want to say. Received on Thu Feb 15 2007 - 15:18:06 CET