Re: boolean datatype ... wtf?

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:19:08 -0700 (PDT), Erwin wrote:

>On 6 okt, 13:50, Hugo Kornelis <h..._at_perFact.REMOVETHIS.info.INVALID>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:44:08 -0700 (PDT), Erwin wrote:
>> >I think you missed the point about 'logic'.
>>
>> Well, then I'm sure you can explain exactly when and where I missed the
>> point about logic, how you think I went wrong and what I should have
>> written.
>
>I'm afraid I can't, but I can always try.
>
>Your use of the word 'logic' seemed to me to appeal to the notion of
>"common sense". Especially if your use of the word derives from the
>Dutch "het is logisch dat ...".

This use of the word is also endorsed by most English dictionaries. For instance, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic describes formal logic as the first meaning, but lists "a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty" as the second meaning.

And within the context of the discussion, this was indeed the meaning. If you read back, you'll see that I started my reply to a question posted by Paul Mansour with:
>>>>>> The most logical choices, IMO, are:
In this sentence, the word "logical" obviously did not refer to formal logic, as that would not make any sense in that context. Bob Badour then challenged me:
>>>>>What makes either of those choices logical?
I tried to explain, and concluded my explanation with:
>>>> That's the logic of the first choice.
And at that point, you claimed that I missed the point about 'logic'.

> Bob's use of the word 'logic'
>presumably appealed to the notion of "formal logic", i.e. the
>scientific discipline in mathematics.

If that is the case, then Bob must have completely misunderstood what I meant when I wrote "The most logical choices, IMO, are". Frankly, I fail to see anything in that message that could possibly lead to such an interpretation. My command of the English language must be far below the level I always presumed it to be.

(snipped explanation of formal logic - I am familiar with that concept)

>As another example, in your reply you talked of domains. However,
>formal logic doesn't necessarily have such a thing as "domains". Only
>sorted logic does. And even then, sorted logic does not prescribe
>which domains can exist and which can't. Even sorted logic does not
>proscribe against a domain such as {black chair, black night, black
>woman}. Your reply gave me the impression that you were building on
>the assumptions that all considered domains must "make sense" in some
>sense.

I was refering to domains in a data model. Pauls question was about how to model a specific situation where the user interface allowed exactly one of the three options Male, Female, and Unknown. I replied how I would model this.

Best, Hugo Received on Thu Oct 07 2010 - 00:20:05 CEST