Re: foundations of relational theory?

In article <C%xmb.25500$Tr4.51892_at_attbi_s03>, Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com> writes
>"Mike Preece" <michael_at_preece.net> wrote in message news:1b0b566c.0310250346.6bf
>d2f10_at_posting.google.com...
>>
>> The "real world" we're talking about measuring against doesn't exist
>> in any fixed form. Dare I say it has multiple values?
>>
>> ;-)
>
>What I consider to be the real world is composed of atoms
>and pretty much nothing else. :-)
>
>
>Marshall
>
>PS. Despite their name, these "atoms" I speak of are
>themselves composed of smaller "sub-atomic" particles.
>
And I'd equate the relational "tuple" to a quark.

The quark is a mythical beast we know exists, but cannot observe. I'd say the tuple is the same :-)

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let 
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett