Re: On Formal IS-A definition
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 22:11:29 -0300
Message-ID: <4be368c3$0$12455$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> [something about a definition of is-a]
>
>
> I was taught about relational database theory without any
> mention of 'Clinton' or 'information principle'. Shit happens.
> I don't smoke, either. My definition is of "is-a" is crystal
> clear, unlike the information principle, but I do think I invoked
> just that principle as an argument to justify the definition.
>
> A reference to 'Clinton' would be most appreciated.
> (Google isn't particularly helpful, as expected.)
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 22:11:29 -0300
Message-ID: <4be368c3$0$12455$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Reinier Post wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
>>Bob Badour wrote: >> >>>Reinier Post wrote:
>
> [something about a definition of is-a]
>
>>>I thought Clinton settled this whole issue already. Cigar anyone? >> >>I think Clinton knew his silly language parsing didn't matter to the >>majority of his (semi-literate) public. What puzzles me is why smart >>people here spend time on such subjective fooferah and never bring up, >>say, just what the Information Principle really means.
>
> I was taught about relational database theory without any
> mention of 'Clinton' or 'information principle'. Shit happens.
> I don't smoke, either. My definition is of "is-a" is crystal
> clear, unlike the information principle, but I do think I invoked
> just that principle as an argument to justify the definition.
>
> A reference to 'Clinton' would be most appreciated.
> (Google isn't particularly helpful, as expected.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky#Scandal Received on Fri May 07 2010 - 03:11:29 CEST