Re: Atomic Structures
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 05:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <86c2937c-ae8f-4d95-9452-846585d2f805_at_googlegroups.com>
Vladimir
Thanks for your response.
i. Frege
Frankly, you are obsessed with Frege and I don’t think that is relevant to the subject or the discussion about it. SO let me close the Frege side, so that we can proceed with the subject.
> Frege is misinterpreted and even degraded by some persons.
I wouldn’t know, and I don’t care, I am only interested in his work, and then only if it is actually relevant. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.
> But on the other hand is increasingly spreading information on the web
The web is a study in misinformation and propaganda. If the Jews don’t like him (for whatever reason), he will be vilified on the web. If the jews have an agenda, such as with Einstein, the world’s greatest plagiarist, they will promote him.
I couldn’t care less if he was a fascists or one of the race that murders hundreds of millions of humans. For this forum, I am only interested in his work. And particularly if it is pre-Modern science (that is, before science was destroyed by the Modernists).
> Scientific work belongs to its author.
Yes. Good. I am glad that you said that, and that you acknowledge the relevance of that.
Now my answers following sound that I am against Frege, but that is only because you proposition that Frege did this and Frege did that and Frege makes the world go around. As described above, I don’t have any opinion about Frege one way or the other, and I have not formed an opinion because I have not studied his work. So what follows is a response to your comments (not to Frege), you can change the occurrence of “Frege” to some other name, and the responses will still apply.
ii.
>
In order to accurately define the predicates we need to understand first of all semantics.
Yes.
> Semantics is the science that Frege created.
Nonsense. Aristotle (350 BC) invented what we call semantics today. Names; Sentences; Predicates; Categories; Sets; etc.
Semantics means Logic. It also means linguistics. That is both. That means when Logic and Linguistics are done correctly, they are one and the same (sure, the schizophrenics split them up into fragments).
Medieval philosophy is chock-full of book with /Sentences/ in their name. Why ? Because they deal with Logic; with whole Sentences, which includes the names; predicates; correct formation (syntax, structure); material; etc.
>
Before Frege'
philosophy and some other sciences were divided into two realms:
- The world of the spirit, thoughts, ideas.
- The world of matter.
Frege introduces the third realm [3], it is the realm of semantics, which
connects two mentioned worlds.
<
Not according to history.
I don’t know where you got that from (I would guess the web, or Modernist “education”), but it is missing 2,250 years of history, that is from 350 BC to 1890 AD. Modernists like to think that they invented things; that their freaky “philosophy” is Western Thought. It isn’t. Western Thought was established, the West (Christendom) was built before the Modernists were hatched.
Read up on Aristotle. Start with his /Categories/.
First came philosophy, and from the outset, Logic, because if you can’t think correctly, you can’t form valid conclusion about whatever you are studying. Until Modernist times, philosophy was a grand science, they have transformed it into the fantasy of the the insane. The point is, if you are going to relate history, you have to think of philosophy as it was then, not as it is now.
So philosophy was scientific (logical; requiring proofs; etc).
The first object of Philosophy was God, the first questions were /Who are we/ and /Why are we here/.
That eventually become a science of its own, the First Philosophy, the first science.
Philosophy then proceeded to examine the natural world, which became the sciences. Which is why Science is rightly called the Second Philosophy.
They were not separate, as you suggest, they were one world. Schizophrenic was not normal in those days.
Aristotle proved the existence of a single God, and various attributes of God, in 350 BC. St Thomas Aquinas proved (rather famously) many more things about God, in 1270, using the Aristotlean vehicles. But any one who understands them (Aristotle; Science; Logic; the vehicle [method] used) can prove God in any subject or event. He also proved the existence of the soul, in close to 100 layers of definition, and its purpose. — It is a very sad thing that people today are so, so, so, ignorant, that they don’t know of these proofs, and they ask “Gee, does God exist ?”, or worse “What is the soul ?”. These poor creatures are living in a pre-historic level of education (ie. pre-350 BC).
The point is, your [1] and [2] were, and are, not separate (yes, the propaganda has split them, and each Modernist “science” is isolated, each in their own little limited and contrived “reality”, but that is not reality).
The point is, your [3] was invented by Aristotle, 2,250 before Frege was born. Before Codd was born as well.
Logic did not change or progress until Boole; etc, and that was for a purpose of a particular science, mathematics. There are some 13th century philosophers who take credit from certain advances in Logic, but any student of Aristotle can readily show that that is actually in Aristotle’s works.
Now, I am willing to be informed that Frege did something important, but none of what you have stated above, re either history or re Frege is true.
>
In which way Frege introduced semantics? He used the spoken language as a
tool and using it he connected the world of thought with the real world.
<
No. See above.
Reality was, and is, always connected with all other parts of reality. It is only in post-Modern times, according to their hysterical propaganda that /their/ world is split. From Aristotle to the Modernist era, there was only one reality, and the purpose of Logic, of Science, was to study that one reality, which is the natural world. Thought was always connected to the real world, otherwise thought has no purpose. Even uneducated people knew that. The only people whose thought is not connected to the real world are insane. They used to be locked up in asylums. But after we lost the war, they roam the streets and infect people, and now they teach in universities, and own and operate all the channels of media.
Pardon me, but I have managed to retain my sanity, by the Grace of God. So there is one real world, not a million tiny fragments, and one set of thoughts about it that are (a) integrated with other thoughts and (b) integrated with the real world.
>
Which linguistic constructs are most important for the theory of databases?
The answer to this question is:
- Names
- Predicates
Linguistic constructs names denote objects (entities or individuals). Linguistic constructs predicates denote concepts. <
Agreed.
- I can obtain the science for [1] directly from Aristotle, whole and complete.
- If you take your [2] and add the bits that are missing (formal handling of Existence; Names), in order to make it a viable science, then it is complete, and useful. I don’t need Frege or Godel or anyone else, I can do that directly from Aristotle.
- Until 1900, [1] and [2] together were called Sentences, what is now FOPC (ie. excluding the mathematical portion of FOPC, but including the portions that Modern “mathematicians” avoid, expunge.)
>
The simplest predicates in Frege's theory are predicates which correspond to
the so-called "one place“ concepts and „relational" concepts.
Is there a connection between thoughts and language? Frege's answer is: sentences express thoughts.
It is very important to understand what are concepts. A concept determines the plurality of objects that satisfy properties which have been defined with this concept.
Frege introduces object "extension". Roughly speaking, an extension is a set, and the elements of this set are from the plurality which is determined by the concept. Thus, a set is plurality, which is understood as one object. <
Yes, I know all that.
Aristotle defined all that (a) with about ten times more distinctions; discernments, and (b) with full resolution. Your Frege stuff is un-resolved, they are propositions.
>
So, the properties of concepts are in fact properties (attributes) which we
put in relations from Relational Model. (not predicates)
<
Well, that only means that what you define as predicates, and what I define as Predicates are somewhat different. You are taking an Frege-Frege-Frege approach, and that is fine. I am taking an historical approach. Thus our paths are different, but I am hoping that we arrive at the same target location.
You are hanging onto to :
(a) a total ignorance of history, and
(b) that therefore semantics and predicates and names somehow started with Frege.
Fine. But you will have to drop that if you are going to proceed further, from where you are, to resolution on this thread.
Predicates are part of the RM, and can be fully functional and useful, in a way that no one on this forum understands. As proved in close to 100 Relational databases that i have written. When I saw this thread of yours, I thought, aha, finally, someone who might understand (although not completely).
I might be wrong.
As stated, I couldn’t care less about Frege, I am interested in the topic of this thread, Atomic Structures, and I have substantial experience, such that I don’t have most of the problems that you have posted about. So if you like, I can discuss how I achieved that, and I already have to some degree.
So you will have to drop:
a. your talk about Frege or anyone else
b. trying to teach me something, because as demonstrated, I am already way ahead of you, both in the theoretical and practical realm, regarding
—— FOPC
—— the RM
—— and Predicates
—— all used together.
iii.
>
So, in simple terms: the predicates are linguistic constructs and predicates correspond to concepts. Concepts are mental constructs and concepts "make" sets.
<
That is mixed up.
>
However the predicates (concepts ) does not identify the objects. Note that
I wrote above that the extension (set) is an object. As names denote objects
then the extension (or set) has a name. As you can see from this text,
concepts are dominant, not predicates.
<
You have previously (just above this) stated that “predicates correspond to concepts”. So that is mixed up as well.
>
Another thing that can be seen from
this text is that many objects(entities) are used. I have introduced the
theory of identification in which identification of objects play an
important role. This further leads to the conceptual level.
<
Thanks, but I am rather attached to Aristotle’s concept of Identification (his First Law of Thought, plus the concept, in about 60 layers). As used in the West, and for Western thought, for 2,250 years.
So, pardon me, but:
a. you did not introduce it (you may think you did, if you have not read history)
b. to the extent that you think you have an understanding of Identity, whatever you think it is is about 0.01 per cent of what is already established in the pre-Modern world, what I already know
(Noting that Modern “theoreticians” know nothing of pre-Modern history or science.)
>
So now I'm asking you whether the predicate determines a set or the set is
determined by something else?
<
I am happy to answer the question. But you have posed it such that the question applies to your path, which I have rejected, so I cannot answer it in your way, I will only get tied up in your knots.
I don’t have those knots.
As explained, I am quite happy to start with FOPC (rather than go back in history: on your side to Frege; on my side to Aristotle.
- FOPC has Variables (quantifiers).
- The Variable Names the Set.
Therefore the Variable is the Set, or Identifies the Set. (And the Key Identifies each member of the Set.)
Therefore the question “So now I'm asking you whether the predicate determines a set or the set is determined by something else?” is not logical, or it is based on ignorance of FOPC.
3. The named set is the *Inten[s]ion*.
Now if you understand the RM (only 5% of which your “authors” have explained in their “textbooks”), and you apply Relational Keys, you will arrive at:
4. Two types of Predicates are required: Unary (one variable or set); and Binary (two variables or sets, one subject and one object)
5. the *Extension* of that initial set, which includes all its child sets.
6. And there, you will find Relational Integrity (which is unknown in this forum, and in other places that these imbeciles post).
>
In this, very short text, I explained that E. Codd did not understand some
important and basic things.
<
No, you haven’t explained that (you have postulated that, without evidence, a mere opinion).
In any case, I reject it.
It is up to you to prove your proposition (the burden of proof is on the prosecutor), it is not up to me to prove that your proposition is false.
Nevertheless, the simple, unavoidable, evidence on Codd and my side is, I have read the very same paper, and unlike you and the others who post here:
a. found nothing lacking b. have been able to use the concepts completely c. enjoy the benefits of each d. extend and expand the concepts (a progression, I am not suggesting that I invented something) e. developed modelling techniques for each aspect of it, in a single modelling method
Having done that, first theoretically, and second practically, I flatly reject the notion that Codd “did not understand some basic things”.
You are doing the very thing that you accuse the detractors of Frege to be doing. Call it off, and learn about Codd’s work. Not from the “textbooks” which are written by detractors,but from Codd’s own papers. And second, from a disciple such as I, who has proved his work for decades, and who does not have the mental gaps of knowledge that you have (as evidenced in your post).
>
Moreover, I have not noticed that Codd wrote
something about concepts, relationships between concepts and predicates,
concepts and sets, thoughts, relationships between thoughts and language,
formal theory of spoken languages, proof theory for propositional logic and
predicate logic, the relationship between mind and logic, ...
<
That is correct. He didn’t have to. He did not write a book, with a chapter or three for each of those subjects. You are supposed to know those subjects, from other material. He wrote a paper on The Relational Model, and as with any paper, he did not have to explain anything and everything that relates to his paper. It is stupid to expect that (Date, Darwen, Fagin, etc expect that, because they are sub-human imbeciles, feeding on pig poop, who do not understand the basics, the scope, of a technical paper).
Stop following imbeciles.
> E. Codd remained at the predicate calculus of the first order
Yes. FOPC is all you need. You don’t need Second Order. You simply chain a series of FOPs together (that can be legally connected).
> although Frege developed the theory of second-order predicates,
Nonsense. Read history.
>
..., predicates of n-
th order and a very tough cross combinations.
Note that Frege did this from scratch
<
Nonsense. Read history.
> and one hundred years before the appearance of the relational model.
Sure.
And Aristotle developed FOPC (minus the recent mathematical rendition), and the complete basis for n-OPC 2,250 years before Frege. Very very very complex. Of course it was called Logic, not FOPC then.
> Codd did it by applying Frege's results.
You have not proved that he did, or that it is relevant. It is apparent to me that Codd used FOPC, as it was, and FOPC included Predicates. So Frege’s work may or may not have been used to develop FOPC, but in any case that was before Codd. It is not logical to state that Codd used Frege’s work, because FOPC existed before Codd, and he used FOPC as is.
>> Scientific work belongs to its author.
> Yes. Good. I am glad that you said that, and that you acknowledge the relevance of that.
Make sure that Frege and Codd *each* get credit for what they did.
Make sure that you do not perform that same detractive acts that you accuse others of doing. Otherwise you prove yourself a hypocrite, and lose credibility.
iv.
>
Now I will switch to Logic
Note that formally speaking, the following is OK: If a sentence is written, then it is just set of some symbols and nothing more.
If this sentence is uttered, then it is set of some voices. <
Rejected, in favour of 2,250 years of Logic.
>
Due to the above presentations of sentences, how you look at Codd's
involving of predicates and "propositional sentences" in the relational
model? Do you think that it is well explained in relational model?
<
I am happy to answer those question. But you have posed it such that the question applies to your path, which I have rejected, so I cannot answer it in your way, I will only get tied up in your knots.
I don’t have those knots.
so this clause:
> Due to the above presentations of sentences
is rejected, because as explained earlier, and noted above, it is a serious impediment, but I will answer the overall questions, precisely because I do not have that impediment.
- Codd did not invent FOPC. It already existed. He used it as is. So the first thing I would advise you to do is, get familiar with FOPC.
— I don’t know what Frege has to do with it, but you really do not need to figure out who did what, you can start at FOPC.
2. Codd used FOPC, and he wrote the complete Relational Algebra for it. That means FOPC, and not the RA, is the foundation. of the RM. The RA proves the theoretical basis for the RM, whereas FOPC is the foundation.
3. All FOPC sentences (ie. properly formed) are Predicates.
4. FOPC is one step more advanced that Propositional Logic, and thus useful to us re RA and the RM, because FOPC has variables (quantifiers) and PL doesn’t.
5. And finally, FOPC, plus some simple additions for articulation to make the implicit, explicit (not additions to FOPC), is all that is required for the Predicates that relate to everything in the RM, and therefore in any Relational Database.
6.
> Do you think that it is well explained in relational model?
No, it is not explained at all.
More importantly, it doesn’t have to be explained.
The fact that he *tells* you that the RA is founded on FOPC, means that you have to go and learn FOPC.
No paper on earth explains everything that it *refers* to.
It is idiotic (yes, the sub-humans who wrote the books that you read are severely damaged mentally and physically) to expect an explanation or treatise of subject X in a paper about subject Y, that *REFERS* to X.
Stop listening to the pig-poop-eaters, and start thinking for yourself.
v.
> Here's another question: A declarative sentence is written in English.
I will take it that you mean, a properly constructed sentence in English is a Declaration. If that is the case, yes, I agree.
>
Then
this sentences is translated into another language, for example into Indian.
I think that these two sentences are "the same". My question is "what is it
that is the same in these two sentences."
<
First, I have already invited you to email me, because I can give you finished materials that I cannot post here, in public. They will answer those questions, and much, much, more.
Second, there are two big assumptions.
a. the translation is correct
b. the target language has a syntactical structure that supports at least that of the English syntax. Eg. Bahasa Indonesia and tribal languages fail. Eg. Any Sanskrit based language succeeds (Latin; Hindi; Deutsche; English; etc).
- The subject (mandatory, the first variable)
- The verb (mandatory)
- The object (optional, the second variable)
- The *meaning* (in your primitive explanation, you call it “concept”, but that is incomplete) of the sentence, specifically: 4.1 subject—verb 4.2 subject-verb-object
Now there are qualifiers. In the first instance, by way of explanation, I give the above, without qualifiers. After you understand that, and not before, you can add qualifiers. Eg. in the Relational Model, we call qualifiers Cardinality.
4.2 restated:
subject-verb-cardinality-object
vi.
>
What is the truth-value of the following sentence: This sentence is false.<
That is the typical behaviour of a sub-human freak; an entertainer; a magician, the pig-poop-eaters who write the books that you read. I did not expect that from you, Vladimir.
The problem is this. It is only a problem in the freaky, demented, contrived “reality” of the person who asks such a stupid question, and those who are programmed to believe that “reality”, and thus removed from reality. In the Modernist sciences, such as “mathematics”; “logic”; which are (a) fragments of the science (b) in denial of 2,250 years of history of Science, people only know those fragments, they do not know Philosophy; Science; Logic. So these sad people, sure, they can’t answer the question, it is magic.
This is the same as The Null Problem: it does not exist for an undamaged human, but it exists, it is very “real”, a massive impediment, to the “theoreticians”.
Second, those sad people, stuck as they are with a few fragments, are limited to that which they can derive from their sad, sad, fragments. Eg. You are stuck with a truth table, and stuck with truth-values, as the only method to dig yourself out of the hole that has dug by the truth-value limitation. So make sure that you understand, the problem is yours (and the pig-poop-eater who you are quoting), not mine.
In Philosophy; Science; Logic, ie. the pre-Modern era, we do not have those impediments. We do not have fragments. We have whole integrated concepts. There is no magic or entertainment in it for me.
In the post-Modern era of “philosophy”; “science”; “logic”, you have only fragments; insanity; traps that are made purely from your limitation to fragments.
In the pre-Modern era, Logic, at the highest level, was divided into two branches: Formal Logic; and Material Logic. Formal Logic is concerned with the Form of the sentence, that the conclusion is accurately obtained from the premises, with no regard to the premises or their accuracy. Material Logic is concerned with the Matter, the premises, and whether they are accurate, and thus whether the conclusion has a valid premise or basis. Both are required for normal human function. That is why God Gave both of them to us.
In the post-Modernist era, Material Logic is suppressed. Thus Formal Logic is artificially elevated to being the “only” type of Logic that is taught; known; used. That being the case, those poor heathens are stuck, in a contrivance that they created: the “truth-value” defies the “truth”.
Those of us who are not crippled have Material Logic. No, I am not going to give you a tutorial, get a good book, printed before 1870, and read it.
The statement fails.
If you insist on the “truth-value” in the tiny contrived “reality” that it is relevant, please figure it out for yourself, I do not have the interest to construct something that is proved to be broken and stupid.
> When I find free time, I'll add another one or two posts, on this subject,
especially about Logic,
Please don’t. You think you are inventing things that were invented and perfected in 350 BC. Or that Frege or someone invented something that was invented and perfected in 350 BC, and that you are the first to introduce it to us. Both are false. You will make better use of your time if you read the history of Logic.
> The mapping between data models and about Atomic
structures.
I have already answered that. It is not relevant, not required, for anyone who understands and implements a full set of FOPC Predicates. All detailed in my previous post.
Therefore, while you (and others on this forum) may still suffer from differences between data models; incomplete or problematic atomic structures; the consequences thereof, I do not have that disease, or those problems. Therefore, I do not need any of your dissertations on the subject.
But if you care to read my previous post, which was in response to your post, that is, the point of mutual interest, and respond to those points, then perhaps you can proceed to a further understanding of the subject matter, and my interest would be maintained.
But if you keep repeating the same old Frege-Frege-Frege atuff, if you keep demonstrating that you are ignorant of history, if you keep repeating that you invented some (incomplete!( that was invented and perfected thousands of years ago, I will lose interest.
Cheers
Derek
Received on Fri May 20 2016 - 14:48:57 CEST