Re: One-To-One Relationships

JOG wrote:
...
> Why don't you first define the term entity, as opposed to just
> assuming their existence as axiomatic. I look forward to there being
> absolutely no room for debate or disagreement! Look, you get a lot of
> respect on this forum, particularly off myself, but this does not
> excuse arrogance, so now we are all ears.
> ...

PMFJI but this is just too much fun not to have a go: Something that exists?

As opposed to those things that don't exist, of course, you know, the really spurious ones we can't model, the non-entities (like me I've been told). Hold on, maybe they do exist in some kind of second-order closed world. Something might not exist but the next minute we define it in an ER model - presto!, now it exists. Sarcasm aside, it really depends only one what is necessary for one to admit as existing to satisfy one's purpose. Some systems get along quite well by denying the existence of integers and binary numbers of all kinds, decimal numbers are good enough for them.

With due deference to David C, somehow this reminds me of a Spencer Tracy movie that was on the other day, I think it was based on the infamous Scopes trial, where he has the creationist on the witness stand and gets him to agree that while the earth is only 6,000 years old, the very first day could well have been ten million years long, because the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Received on Sat Dec 01 2007 - 02:07:22 CET