Re: General semantics

On 11 mei, 17:27, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 2:20 pm, Cimode <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11 mai, 07:50, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:> I just started reading Science and Sanity, by Alfred Korzybski, first
> > > edition published 1933.  I was quite impressed by the following line,
> > > derivatives of which I've seen in this group numerous times.
>
> > > "Because relations can be defined as multi-dimensional order, ...
> > > after naming the un-speakable entities, all experience can be
> > > described in terms of relations of multi-dimensional order."
>
> > > Anyone else interested in general semantics and it's correspondences
> > > to the relational model?
>
> > Judging from these few sentences, none.
> > Defining relations as *Multidimensional order* sounds more like an
> > obscure buzz word than a serious definition.
>
> I was thinking about Date's admonition against "flat relations".
> Perhaps I'm stretching it too far.

Cimode's reply is spot-on.

And I fail to see what "general semantics and it's correspondences to the relational model?" has to do with this delusionary nonsense of "relations being flat".

I'm reminded of this expression in the local dialect of my native language, which speaks of "flat baby's" for "only-just-borns" (in which 'flat' refers to the usual viscosity of their excrements, rather than to their physical height ...).

But in natural language, it is perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable to employ idiomatic expressions and figurative speech. In discussions which are supposed to be scientific, that is much less the case.

Relations are n-dimensional, with n being equal to the degree of the relation concerned. That's a well-established fact. Relation variables have a corresponding (logical) predicate, which is supposed to have the same "degrees of freedom" (logical variables ?) as the degree of the relation variable and the relations it can contain. Replacing each "logical variable" occurring in the predicate with the appropriate value from a tuple from the body of the relation that is the current value of the relvar, yields a logical proposition that is (assumed to be) true. That's a well-established fact too.

Now since "semantics" essentially means "meaning", and "meaning" is formalized in logic as predicates and propositions, that's where you have your "correspondence between semantics and the relational model".

But perhaps I'm simplifying too far. Received on Tue May 18 2010 - 23:19:52 CEST