Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?
From: Jon Heggland <jon.heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 09:24:36 +0200
Message-ID: <e3ca7j$lle$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no>
>
> I said it brushes up against it. It doesn't violate it in the sense that
> one can still refer to a set {P#} by the value of the entire set. But
> that's an awkward way to refer to it -- especially when the value can
> change with time.
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 09:24:36 +0200
Message-ID: <e3ca7j$lle$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no>
Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>> Bob Badour wrote: >>> The problem with SP { S#, {P#} } in base relations is it brushes up >>> against the information principle. It introduces a 'thing' that one >>> cannot discuss as a simple value, and that 'thing' is a set of parts. >>> ... >> >> Interesting you should say that. I thought it was adhering quite well >> to the IP, more so than the tack the practical people I've known would >> likely have taken.
>
> I said it brushes up against it. It doesn't violate it in the sense that
> one can still refer to a set {P#} by the value of the entire set. But
> that's an awkward way to refer to it -- especially when the value can
> change with time.
I'd say that's exactly how you do refer to a value---by the value itself. If the "value" has a name, and can change with time, it seems more like a variable, not a value.
-- JonReceived on Thu May 04 2006 - 09:24:36 CEST