Re: teaching relational basics to people, questions
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:36:19 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 22, 2:59 pm, "Mr. Scott" <do_not_re..._at_noone.com> wrote:
This statement may imply strong consequences, but it seems to be correct.
> Concrete objects aren't. Concrete objects can come into existence or can cease to
> exist. Abstract objects just are. The integer three just is.
In fact, here we have the following three abstract objects:
1. integer; 2. the particular number 3; 3. a triad, for example three cars.
For G. Frege “3” in “3 + 5 = 8” is a name. Or “three” in “ There are
three cars on the street” is a name.
Frege’s notation of an object is characterized as the kind of thing which can be the referent of a name. So a number is an object. Also there are the different kinds of abstract objects regarding universal and existential quantification (for example numbers and relations).
As far as I know Frege’s model is the only general model or framework for abstract objects.
There are some other views. “Some say that what is true or false is not the sentence, but the meaning or thought expressed by the sentence.”
There is group of mathematicians and philosophers named “Platonists”
who “believes that there are abstract objects not perceptible to our
senses that exist independently of us. Such objects can be perceived
by us only through our intellect.”
I write about these things because your post in fact is about the fundamentals.
I use abstract objects in my DB design. I treat abstractions of properties, attributes, entities, etc. as abstract objects. I pay attention to identification of objects as crucial question related to objects. So I have identification of pluralities, entities, attributes, states etc.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Sun Dec 27 2009 - 15:36:19 CET