Re: Using the RM for ADTs

From: none <rp_at_raampje.>
Date: 14 Jul 2009 19:45:24 GMT
Message-ID: <4a5ce054$0$8964$703f8584_at_news.kpn.nl>

>I think we have our wires crossed here. I don't postulate an absolute
>object universe in which every object absolutely exists. I postulate a
>fixed universe that contains everything that CAN be discussed.

OK. My mistake.

>For a fixed
>domain, individual quantifiers range over everything that can possibly be,
>not just everything that actually is. Existence--that is, actual
>existence--is a property that everything that has become actual but hasn't
>yet become history has.

So you can quantify over all green 20x50 windows that didn't magically appear just above my head yesterday between 22:50 and 22:53 GMT, right? And over all green 20x50 windows that didn't appear *in any way* just above my head yesterday between 22:50 and 22:53 GMT, right? Are they the same set?

I'm sorry, I find this pointless, even as a thought exercise.

-- 
Reinier

Received on Tue Jul 14 2009 - 21:45:24 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: none: "Re: identifying entities across database updates (was: Is a function a relation?)"
Previous message: Cimode: "Re: some ideas about db rheory"
Maybe in reply to: David BL: "Using the RM for ADTs"
In reply to Brian Selzer: "Re: Using the RM for ADTs"
Next in thread: Tegiri Nenashi: "Re: identifying entities across database updates (was: Is a function a relation?)"
Reply: Brian Selzer: "Re: Using the RM for ADTs"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message