Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <13ddae2e-ec94-49a6-aa1a-4722cdd7eefd_at_u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>


On Feb 28, 12:24 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 feb, 07:01, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:14 pm, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
>
> > > Marshall wrote:
>
> > > > THAT is a definition.
>
> > > How can I rephrase this to qualify to your standards of what a
> > > definition is?:
>
> > > [Value]
> > > "A value is unique, eternal, immutable, and is not
> > > fixed in time or space (it has no address)."
> > > - Darren Duncan
>
> > > Ok, ok. I'll unhide my hidden agenda: nobody responded
> > > my proposal for the glossary until now :-)
>
> > > Any more silence I'll consider as approval.
>
> > Hmmm. Well, this unfortunately isn't just a matter of phrasing.
> > A set of descriptive qualities is not a definition.
>
> > Unfortunately where "value" is concerned, it is often the
> > most low-level terms that are the hardest to define.
> > By way of example, I'm paying a modest amount of
> > attention to set theory lately, and it uses terms like
> > "set" and the membership relation but explicitly does
> > not define them.
>
> > For what it's worth, lately when I think of "value", I just think
> > "a member of a set."
>
> Everything is a member of at least one set. So everything is a value?

You didn't qualify that statement enough. Certainly *I* am not a member of a set, nor a value.

Within a formal system, the only things of which we can speak are members of the domain of discourse, yes? And that domain is a set, yes? So every element of the domain of discourse is a value.

Your feedback appreciated.

Marshall Received on Fri Feb 29 2008 - 06:58:54 CET

Original text of this message