Re: General semantics

From: Nilone <reaanb_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e764b5a2-fcd5-430b-9732-f33e12a907e0_at_v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>



On May 21, 7:57 am, Clifford Heath <n..._at_spam.please.net> wrote:
> paul c wrote:
> > By unary relation I mean a relation with one attribute (which I think is
> > pretty standard lingo, surprised that anybody here wouldn't think that)
>
> Right, that's what I thought you meant. In which case, it could be a
> representation of either an existential fact type (an object type),
> or a unary predicate over one. The distinction is important. A unary
> predicate creates a subset of the object type it involves.
>
> This distinction was, I believe, the cause of your earlier disagreement.
>
> Further, a unary fact type does not have to be mapped as a unary relation.
> It could be represented as a boolean value in a table of that object type.
>
> > but I have no idea what a 'fact type' is.  I know of relation and tuple
> > types but don't know what use terms like 'fact type' or 'unary fact'
> > terms might have.

Perhaps, fact type = intension while unary fact = proposition? Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 05:45:06 CDT

Original text of this message