Re: Mixing OO and DB
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:05:54 +0100
Message-ID: <47b74f60$0$14347$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> That things we can compute need not to be recorded. It is here, computed.
> If you can spell a fact in the formal system you can forget about its
> meaning. We write Pi and leave the meaning of to the reader. It is a heavy
> burden for him, but a great relief for us, an abstraction in short.
>
>
> But why do you insist of meaningfulness? Even informally we deal with a lot
> of conditionals, uncertain and contradictory facts. Can't you live with
> "let the input X be meaningful"?
>
> (:-)) Unfortunately, in our discipline marketing is the reality.
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:05:54 +0100
Message-ID: <47b74f60$0$14347$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> (I don't think that types inference is a good idea,
> but that is a rant for another day. (:-))
Don't forget to xpost it :-)
>>>>>>> ... And, equivalently, you cannot describe >>>>>>> recording in terms of either data or facts. >>>>>> Yep, that's the fate of primitives and semi-primitives. >>>>> In other words being recorded / data is incomputable. >>>> Being recorded - maybe, but data - why not? >>> For data are [incomputably] recorded [incomputable] facts... >> So we can't record facts containing computed data. >> Where did this go wrong?
>
> That things we can compute need not to be recorded. It is here, computed.
> If you can spell a fact in the formal system you can forget about its
> meaning. We write Pi and leave the meaning of to the reader. It is a heavy
> burden for him, but a great relief for us, an abstraction in short.
>
>>>>> Anyway it would be not "I want data, else there is no >>>>> common ground." It would be about the structure of the formal system which >>>>> you wished deploy for what you call data. (Maybe, I could to do it as well, >>>>> but for something having a different name.) >>>> If that what it takes to get rid of the scarequotes, I have no >>>> problem with you calling it something else if there are enough >>>> common associations and isomorphisms - and no blocks. >>>> Do you have a name in mind? Blurk sucks. >>> Inputs? >> No, that won't work. Inputs do not need to be meaningful (have >> values/symbols associated with informal denotations) in order to be >> acceptable to processes. Good enough for IPO, not for IDO.
>
> But why do you insist of meaningfulness? Even informally we deal with a lot
> of conditionals, uncertain and contradictory facts. Can't you live with
> "let the input X be meaningful"?
It is to coarse.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, we cannot reason about meaning while staying >>>>>>>>> within the same formal system. Because you seem >>>>>>>>> to bind data with a meaning (as I do), that immediately >>>>>>>>> kicks the notion of data out of the formal system.
>>>>>>>>> So data do not exist >>>>>>>>> there. Which is all my point! No data, nothing to worry about. >>>>>>>> And the result is a hermetic system as useful as solipsism. >>>>>>>> Have some fun there! I'm out waiting until you are bored of it. >>>>>>> OK, I am back on vacation. How are you going to formalize something which >>>>>>> cannot be formalized? (:-)) >>>>>> Hey, I am not the one eager to formalize without >>>>>> a proper, shared, informal understanding. >>>>> Neither I am. >>>> It sure looks that way, even in your post I am replying to now. >>> I don't insist on formalizing it right now, but I do on that we should keep >>> in mind necessity of doing it in order to be able to sort the mess out. I >>> thought that your remark was about rather temporal aspect. Or do you reject >>> any need of formalization even after certain level of informal >>> understanding? >> No, the informal understanding is to prune useless formalisms as early >> as possible (but even 'certain level' is suspect here as it suggests >> measurability). >> >> Reality check, if you will - not marketing.
>
> (:-)) Unfortunately, in our discipline marketing is the reality.
Yep, there is enough noise to hinder common understanding.
> I agree that there exist a lot of close to practically useless formal
> theories, starting from lambda calculus and ending with formal grammars.
> Yet I would not dismiss them.
Watch your tongue - there are some Lispers here ;-) Received on Sat Feb 16 2008 - 22:05:54 CET