Re: Guessing?

From: paul c <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:48:27 GMT
Message-ID: <%yf7k.23319$Jx.3424@pd7urf1no>


Brian Selzer wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah> wrote in message
...

>>> ... In a first order language, you have constant symbols and
>>> predicate symbols, and under an interpretation, meaning is assigned not 
>>> only to the constant symbols but also to the predicate symbols.  The way 
>>> I see it, the only way you can have overlapping meanings is if a relation 
>>> has a disjunctive predicate. ...
>>
>> Not sure if that's so, but willing to assume it is for now.  It reminds me 
>> that I have doubts about whether any relation should be allowed to 
>> disjunctions within individual propositions, at least if we want 
>> 'interchangeability'.  For example, a base relvar that has been inserted 
>> to with "union" certainly doesn't have a disjunctive predicate so why 
>> should a view that is manifested the same way be different?

>
> Because one involves two database states and the other involves only one.
> Any mutating operation necessarily involves two database states (or
> instances, or values--whichever nomenclature you prefer): there is what was
> then supposed to be the case and what is now supposed to be the case. But a
> view simply presents information contained in one database state--what is
> now supposed to be the case--in a different way. The connection between
> what is presented by a view and what is in the underlying relations is the
> expression that defines the view. If that happens to be a union, then the
> predicate of the view is the disjunction of the predicates of the two
> operands of the union. This is inescapable.
> ...

One may choose one's starting point so as to conclude that it is 'inescapable' (sorry, not trying to mimic Bob B's high tones), but I feel that escape from this consequence is rather necessary! (seems a pedantic consequence to me which usually signals to me that something basic is just wrong, also I'm not saying I have the IQ wherewithal to show how, but am wondering whether a more complete POOD might argue that the presence of any non-disjunctive tuple in a db, no matter whether it's in a base or 'virtual' relation, trumps any disjunctive operator that might have produced/manifested it.) Received on Sat Jun 21 2008 - 17:48:27 CDT

Original text of this message