Re: Objects and Relations

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>> This so wrong it hurts my head.
>OK let's try this again...
>Does it hurt your head to admit that 2 spheres having the same
>location (same center) should be discerned and that such

      A sphere is the volume enclosed by the set of points a specified distance or from a center point. If the distance is different, the sets are obviously different, though the smaller is a subset of the larger. A sphere's location can be defined by x,y,z, *and* r.

>discernability is impossible if location XYZ is chosen as a primary
>key for Sphere relation.

     Oh, dear. You did incomplete analysis and left out r.

>Imagine Sphere1 and imagine Sphere2 with the same center.
>Consider a Sphere relation.
>If you choose Location XYZ as a pk then Sphere1 PK = Sphere2 PK
>therefore Sphere1 and Sphere2 are not discerned when they should be.

     So you got it wrong.

     Try again including r.

>I hope you are putting a honest effort into this. If not let me know,
>so that I stop doing these efforts explaining.

     Ha ha! It amusing to see how wrong you can get and still insist that you are right.

>> If two spheres are in different locations then they /are/ discernable
>> as being unique. That's the whole point. Good grief.
>Agreed. But you obviously miss the point.
>2 different spheres CAN be in the same location XYZ if they have the
>same center. As they would have a common identity, they can not be

     We can discern them by considering the different radius.

>discerned. Do you understand that XYZ can not be considered selected
>as pk because it would break principle of discernability? What part
>don't you understand?

     (x,y,z) does not suffice. Add radius.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.