Re: General semantics

Nilone wrote:
> On May 21, 1:38 pm, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:

>> On 21 mei, 12:45, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>> Instantiating a predicate with attribute values always yields a
>> proposition, no matter what the degree of the relation is.

Tell us why we need more 'correspondences'. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 17:02:05 CEST