Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49ab11e8-5ab8-495d-a468-6c8cc0839aaa_at_i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>


On Feb 22, 11:36 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:13:10 -0800 (PST), Marshall wrote:
>
> > Earlier your threw around the word "uncountable"
> > a few times so maybe you have some related meaning in
> > mind. But it doesn't matter; if we limit our context to what
> > is computable, then mathematical relationships don't somehow
> > vanish;
>
> Of course they do. For example this vanishes:
>
> forall x, circle exist y, circle twice as big

Does this mean that you are claiming that given a computable specification of a circle, it is impossible to determine a computable specification of a circle with twice the radius? Or maybe area? Both those claims are false, but I'm unclear whether or not that's what you are claiming. It appears you are somehow claiming that multiplication is not defined on computable numbers.

> > a computable circle is still an ellipse, just as much
> > as an uncomputable circle is. Also: every countable set of
> > circles is still a subset of the set of all ellipses.
>
> So what?

So what?! It's what we're discussing. So you agree then?

What did you think we were discussing?

Marshall Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 21:20:02 CET

Original text of this message