Re: compound propositions

From: paul c <>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:10:12 GMT
Message-ID: <8xxon.68467$Db2.56011_at_edtnps83>

Bob Badour wrote:
> I, too, find your use of the word sloppy, because a relation is a set of
> things that satisfy a predicate. The relation, itself, doesn't satisfy
> the predicate. Extent or extension is well-defined as a set of instances
> and describes what a relation is: a set of instances that satisfy a
> predicate.
> ...

Maybe, if it is possible to talk theory without ever talking implementation (which has its own conceptual, logical and physical 'levels'). Personally, if a relation has a header and the header satisfies a predicate, I have no problem with the statement that a relation satisfies a predicate, in the same way that if ISO/IEC publishes an IEC definition, I have no problem saying that ISO published it.

I believe it is possible to "think outside of the box" without completely understanding or agreeing about the box as long as any resulting chaos is isolated to just a few people, although I have met people who don't think so (and some of them could never agree on the box in a hundred years). Exploration is often imprecise (not claiming to be much of an explorer myself nor that my musings have any importance except to a handful of fanatics here).

If it's of any help, I'll try to use single quotes more than I already do to help show when I suspect my usage is colloquial or might apply in to some context other than the one at hand.

I think I've exhausted my comments on vocabulary for today. Received on Thu Mar 18 2010 - 23:10:12 CET

Original text of this message