Re: One-To-One Relationships

On Nov 30, 7:34 am, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 10:37 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_ooyah.ac> wrote:
>
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > rpost wrote:
> > ...
> > >> This is the exact problem Chen identified. In the relational model
> > >> it is impossible to have entity-valued attributes, which, in practice,
> > >> we have a huge amount of.
>
> > > Entities are figments of our imaginations.
> > > ...
>
> > That's much better than my reply, looks like the essential point to me.
>
> Entities are concepts that we impose on that which is there (mostly
> shapes made out of atoms, but sometimes abstractions too).
>
> Entities are 'real' in that they are patterns that we think up and
> apply, and 'not real' in that if we were all dead, well there wouldn't
> be any 'entities' would there. Just atoms again.

Is this merely an argument against mathematical realism or something more specific?

> Because we conjure them up 'entities' aren't neatly defined, can
> overlap, change, and will differ from person to person. In fact its a
> testament to the amazing flexibilty of our noggins that that we
> manage to communicate at all.

Do you consider all mathematics to be "conjured up" and therefore not neatly defined as well?

> And as such, anyone who tells you that you can build a permanent, all
> encompassing model out of such utterly woolly things is not to be
> trusted as far as you can throw them.
>
> P.S I have also had similar experinces at Ikea :) I don't follow the
> arrows anymore. They lie.

If there is a valid argument against "entities" I would hope it can be stated more carefully than your or Bob's attempts. Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 01:53:51 CET