Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Objects and Relations

Re: Objects and Relations

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:25:08 GMT
Message-ID: <UmDBh.7530$R71.114359@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>


JOG wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2:27 am, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> 

>>On Feb 17, 9:37 am, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>David BL wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If you have x, y, z, deltaX, deltaY, and deltaZ you
>>>>>won't need orientation. The location of a piece is
>>>>>actually an interval
>>
>>>>Yes, because Lego blocks can only be rotated about the
>>>>vertical axis z by 0,90,180,270 degrees. The interval
>>>>approach also brings out their symmetry under rotation by
>>>>180 degrees. Also square shaped blocks (deltaX = deltaY)
>>>>are symmetric under rotation by 90 degrees.
>>
>>>I would like to claim that this very discussion reveals one
>>>of the advantages of trying to think without entities. It
>>>encourages us to think about the /problem/ instead. That is
>>>to think about our goals, our requirements, our knowledge,
>>>etc. It forces us to consider the facts at hand and those
>>>that may arise and design solutions for handling them.
>>
>>>Is this part of what DB professionals do for a living?
>>>What lingo is used to describe this process?
>>
>>>Keith -- Fraud 6
>>
>>I'm still unsure about this. Let me pose an alternative view, to see
>>whether you can persuade me...
>>
>>Is it possible for the human mind to reason about how to represent
>>Lego configurations without having some awareness of Lego blocks as
>>entities?

Yes, of course it is. Several people have been pointing that out to the self-aggrandizing ignorant ad nauseum.

   This is a subject that is outside mathematics and depends
>>on our "belief systems" that the human mind seems to depend on. In
>>that sense this whole discussion is surely meta-physical. In fact I
>>would say that meta-physics largely concerns the study of the mind.
>>This is what I mean when I justify Platonism. It seems to be the
>>closest fit to how the mind works.

> 
> 
> "It seems to be the closest fit to how the mind works"
> 
> Gah....Unghhh....<gnashing of teeth/>

If you reply directly to the most obvious bullshit, you can snip the remaining nonsense and avoid the wear and tear on your teeth. Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 07:25:08 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US