Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:13:07 GMT
"Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
> Cimode wrote:
>>> Actually whether one likes it or not, even the most cold-hearted and
>>> steely-eyed rationalist eventually has to just believe things.
>>> trick is to keep beliefs to a minimum. Some of my beliefs include
>>> believing that the rules of first-order predicate logic can never fail,
>>> and that those rules are the same everywhere in the universe always. I
>>> have a few more, and so do you (and Bob) if you look deep. (None of
>>> this is to defend any claim that Bob "believes" some particular thing.)
>> In math, the process of formulating basic beliefs, that are reasonable
>> to either admit or observe, is called axiom formulations.
> I generally agree with this, although I might quibble at your
> requirement for reasonableness. Asserting axioms is just giving notice
> of what is not open to discussion. I can be as whimsical as a like
> about my axioms (although I might find no one is willing to play with
> me if I take it too far).
An analogue of axiom formulation in mathematics is "We hold these truths to be self evident." from the US declaration of independence.
Any communication whatsoever begins with some presumed common ground, things that need not be proven in the discussion. When NASA outfitted Voyager I with a message in a bottle to whoever might read it, one presumption they made was that the intelligent readers would have discovered the binary number system. A second presumption was that they would presume that we had also discovered the binary number system.
Newsgroups and other forums get jolted when a newcomer shows up that does not agree with views that are so widely held by regulars that they are treated as not needing discussion. Sometimes, tohse views aren't even verbalized. Although the jolt can have positive effects, it's largely seen as disruptive and unhelpful. Received on Sat Jun 20 2009 - 15:13:07 CEST