Re: Is a function a relation?
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:32:53 -0400
Message-ID: <9vH0m.1587$bq1.604_at_nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>
"David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:197cd07f-2821-436f-97d7-7d5d1ed82cfa_at_f38g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 3:15 am, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
>> "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> > I prefer to consider the RM as a pure mathematical formalism divorced
>> > from "interpretations" (i.e. external predicates and so forth).
>>
>> I can't see how that is even possible, since the extension of a
>> predicate,
>> regardless of whether it is internal or external, is a collection of
>> atomic
>> formulae, each of which must be judged to be true or false under an
>> interpretation. Under the Closed World Interpretation, only those atomic
>> formulae that are judged to be true are represented, but the judgement
>> must
>> still be made, and that requires the assignment of meaning to each term
>> in
>> each atomic formula. I am not saying that the assignment of meaning and
>> the
>> judgement of truth which are the constituents of interpretation should
>> not
>> be isolated, but I think it is a gross oversimplification to deny that
>> they
>> play a part altogether in relational database theory.
>
> What I mean is that one shouldn't confuse pure mathematical systems
> such as set theory with how they are applied in the real world.
>
> A mathematical relation as just a set of tuples.
> I agree that the topic of interpretation is relevant to database
> theory.
Received on Thu Jun 25 2009 - 11:32:53 CEST