Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object.
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:12:54 +0100
Message-ID: <T-ednd6X0L5qsAPbnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d_at_pipex.net>
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:469e067b$0$8844$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
> Roy Hann wrote:
> Unless we are doing a simulation. In which case, we seek to manipulate in
> the safe knowledge that we end up with a representation of what we think
> the real world would have been had it started with the same boundary
> conditions.
Fair enough, and the practical example would be when we are running through a test script.
> The truth of the matter is worlds are meaningless to mathematical
> abstractions.
I'll take your word for it. But surely we are interested in a lot more than mere abstraction here? We are interested in finding *just* those abstractions whose behaviour is a good analogue to the real world. Or to put it differently, we are interested in how set theory and predicate logic can be *applied* to real world data management. It's the "applied-ness" that makes all the difference, and there is only one world where anything can be applied.
Brian's assertion that some arbitrary update can cause a possible world to become an actual world is like something out of Gulliver's Travels.
Roy Received on Wed Jul 18 2007 - 17:12:54 CEST