Re: A Logical Model for Lists as Relations
From: Jay Dee <ais01479_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 03:23:14 GMT
Message-ID: <CcT8g.31763$mh.1533_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>>Jay Dee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>vc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jay Dee wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>> >> What's 'bunch theory' ?
>>>>
>>>>As for my own: scalars are boolean, numbers, and characters. Data
>>>>may be structured (Here we go down the rabbit hole!) as:
>>>> a bunch (unpackaged and unindexed),
>>>> a set (packaged and unindexed),
>>>> a string (unpackaged and indexed), and
>>>> a list (packaged and indexed).
>>>>
>>>>More terminology? Well, bunches and sets consist of elements, which
>>>>has the meaning we're familiar with from sets. Sets are sets; they
>>>>are a package of elements constructed with {} operator. , (comma)
>>>>is the set union operator. Unpackaging a set - interpolating the
>>>>contents of a set - yields a bunch, which also has a comma union
>>>>operator. So
>>>> a, b, c is a bunch
>>>> {a, b, c} is a set.
>>>>
>>>>The empty bunch is null and the empty set is {null}.
>>>
>>>
>>>I strongly suggest you avoid this use of null here, because it in no way
>>>resembles the null used elsewhere in database theory.
>>
>>>Frankly, other than seemingly unimportant punctuation, I see no
>>>difference between your set and your bunch. Is there an operational
>>>difference?
>>
>>The whole point is that {} and , aren't punctuation; they're
>>operators.
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 03:23:14 GMT
Message-ID: <CcT8g.31763$mh.1533_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
vc wrote:
> Jay Dee wrote: >
>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>>Jay Dee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>vc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jay Dee wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>> >> What's 'bunch theory' ?
>>>>
>>>>As for my own: scalars are boolean, numbers, and characters. Data
>>>>may be structured (Here we go down the rabbit hole!) as:
>>>> a bunch (unpackaged and unindexed),
>>>> a set (packaged and unindexed),
>>>> a string (unpackaged and indexed), and
>>>> a list (packaged and indexed).
>>>>
>>>>More terminology? Well, bunches and sets consist of elements, which
>>>>has the meaning we're familiar with from sets. Sets are sets; they
>>>>are a package of elements constructed with {} operator. , (comma)
>>>>is the set union operator. Unpackaging a set - interpolating the
>>>>contents of a set - yields a bunch, which also has a comma union
>>>>operator. So
>>>> a, b, c is a bunch
>>>> {a, b, c} is a set.
>>>>
>>>>The empty bunch is null and the empty set is {null}.
>>>
>>>
>>>I strongly suggest you avoid this use of null here, because it in no way
>>>resembles the null used elsewhere in database theory.
>>
>>>Frankly, other than seemingly unimportant punctuation, I see no
>>>difference between your set and your bunch. Is there an operational
>>>difference?
>>
>>The whole point is that {} and , aren't punctuation; they're
>>operators.
> > > What's the operator ?
The braces and the comma are operators.
>>Well, it's not my invention -- and I'm not arguing that this is a
>>notation that everyone should embrace. Part of the point is that
>>we're stumbling on each other's words.
> > > Whoever's invention that is is not gonna find many converts unless > he/she demonstrates why one should abandon the familiar and accepted > language and start using the bunch of whatever. >Received on Fri May 12 2006 - 05:23:14 CEST