Re: Objects and Relations

DavidBL, a few comments on Keith Duggar response to you.

> > So you're saying a surrogate id can represent an
> > "untrackable attribute", standing for the complete world
> > line of a particle through space and time, without
> > actually acknowledging that the particle exists!
>
> As I pointed out before, 'exists' is a semantic vacuum. Your
> final phrase is equivalent to "without actually acknowledging
> that the particle is ... !" The '...' is empty, meaningless
> filler just as "exists". Until that void is replaced with
> facts, it remains meaningless.
Whether you like it or not Exists IS a part of math as a *semantic vaccum* or anything else. And not it is not *meaningless* just *empirical* as all math is. Assuming existence without proofs is a part of ANY empirical demonstration process.

> > How do you explain the surrogate id in the relation
>
> > Position(*id,*t,x,y,z)
>
> > used to record the world lines of multiple particles that
> > are otherwise indistinguishable?
>
[Snipped comment from Keith]
Ignore Keith Duggar mocking comments. You need to do some reading on the subject. Some people have given deep thought onto the subject and you won't be dealing with the subject seriously if you don't read their books. You may start with:

Introduction to database systems (CJ DATE) then Database in Depth (CJ DATE)

[Snipped]
> > Far from it. Let me explain my pov, by describing what
> > various terms mean to me. Perhaps you may see something I
> > have wrong. If that is the case I would appreciate
> > something more specific and useful than merely "nonsense"
> > (as Bob would typically say).
>
> > The word "exists" appears a lot in mathematics. For
> > example consider
>
> > P = there exists nonzero integers x,y,z
> > such that x^2 + y^2 = z^2
>
> That is a specific, well defined use of the word "exists"
> (quantification) attached to a predicate (x^2 + y^2 = z^2).
> And the predicate is crucial. In contradistinction, informal
> use of "exists" (certainly as you have used it attached to
> "entity") map to meaningless statements such as:
>
> P = there exists x y z ...
>
> that amount to nothing until ... is filled in.
>
> > Generally speaking mathematicians don't waste time arguing
> > about whether the integers exist. Instead they assume it
Agreed. It is a tool. The source of the current misunderstanding leads to good ol *Value vs Variable*...

> No they don't. They assume integer values satisfy properties
> or axioms, not that they "exist" in your metaphysical sense.
Keith is not metaphysical. He just does not accept the empirical nature of math. In a sense, he is sincere calling it meaningless because it empiricism and abstraction CAN seem meaningless.

> > ... tenable ... No! ... Platonic view ... admit it ...
> > fuzzy ... mockery ... do you really want ... pretending
> > ... you'll get stuck ... infinite regress ... you'r own
> > sentences ... are not allowed ... No! ... Platonic realm
> > ... forces us ... to agree ... to have any hope ...
> > but it is *you*

This kind of response demonstrates how despising Keith Duggar can be toward people...Unless, he apologizes to you for such behavior, I suggest you stop responding to him from now on. Received on Fri Feb 16 2007 - 10:35:40 CET