Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:40:08 GMT
"Keith H Duggar" <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>> Marshall wrote:
>> > If the table has only two columns, as I specified, then it
>> > [value1,value2] is necessarily unique, by the definition of
>> > relation. Even it it wasn't, as may be the case in badly
>> > executed SQL tables, there is still no value in adding an
>> > additional column which will contain no further information.
>> The problem is not that the key values aren't unique within a single
>> extension of the database, it is that a key value may identify one object
>> the universe in one extension and a different object in another. A
>> surrogate key solves this problem because there is a bijective mapping
>> between the values in the surrogate domain and all possible objects in
>> universe of discourse.
> There is no such "object" as an "object". If you stop thinking
> in terms of "objects" and "entities" then you will stop having
> the fake problems which lure you to the surrogate ID crutch.
I would have to stop thinking altogether: without objects there can be no conception; without objects there can be no perception; without objects there can be no discourse!
> It's be disccused here many times that "object" is a non-idea,
> a semantic vacuum, a useless crutch substituting thought that
> leads only to confusion and problems. You can see here, now,
> the mis-steps one takes when they confuse their thinking with
> "entity" or "object" non-sense.
Formal semantics involves interpretation--that is, mapping terms within sentential formulae to objects in the universe of discourse. Without objects, all you have left is a meaningless collection of symbols organized in a meaningless way.
> As an exercise, try rewriting your paragraph above without using
> "object", "entity", "thing" or other such void concepts. In other
> words, try to actually say some"thing" ;-)
They are not void concepts.
> Keith -- Fraud 6
Received on Mon Jun 11 2007 - 10:40:08 CEST