Re: One-To-One Relationships
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:50:31 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 30, 2:54 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 9:20 pm, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > How does one interpret a tuple as a proposition about the real world
> > if one avoids any conception of entities?
> How does one interpret a proposition as a proposition about
> the real world?
I'm not sure what you mean.
I didn't state myself clearly. I wasn't intending the formal meaning of "proposition". Please substitute a less formal word like "fact" in my previous post.
> > It seems to me that some entities are inevitable. Can't the distrust
> > of entities be stated without throwing the baby out with the bath
> > water?
> Counter-question: what do you get from entities that you
> don't get from propositions?
I would have thought we need both.
By "proposition" do you mean formula from the propositional calculus?
The propositional calculus is a formalism and doesn't come with some
mapping back to the real world. I don't understand how any mapping
could be understood without any conception of entities.
The propositional calculus is a formalism and doesn't come with some mapping back to the real world. I don't understand how any mapping could be understood without any conception of entities.
Isn't this mapping related to intensional definitions? These are typically stated in natural language because they can't be formalised. It seems to me that the instantiations of natural language intensional definitions are the counterpart to propositions being instantiations of predicates, and such natural language instantiations always refer to things that are assumed to exist in the real world (assuming the RDB is meant to model reality somehow). Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 07:50:31 CET