Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
On 20 juin, 14:40, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Snipped
> >> Actually whether one likes it or not, even the most cold-hearted and
> >> steely-eyed rationalist eventually has to just believe things.
> >> The
> >> 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).
I do not see how you could quibble with my requirements for *reasonableness* since I have not formulated them....yet ;)).
For terminology, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom . I particularly like the difference between an *axiom *(that can not be denied) and a *postulate* that only serves the purpose of building a reasonning upon. For an incurable unbeliever such as myself, X+0 = X is an axiom example while *God exists* remains a postulate.
To me, *reasonable* is a good word for designating what may is acceptable to somebody of average intelligence, assuming such person has a common understanding and perception of that fact. This definition is very strongly inspired by philosophy.
My two cents...
Received on Sat Jun 20 2009 - 15:48:08 CEST