Re: a union is always a join!

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:09:40 -0300
Message-ID: <49c6ef67$0$5492$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>


paul c wrote:

> Brian Selzer wrote:
>

>> "Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message 
>> news:R7qxl.1720$SU3.1350_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>>> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:50qxl.22730$Ws1.10290_at_nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> least not algebraic differences.  Once one admits that there are 
>>>> things in the universe of discourse that can appear different at 
>>>> different times, the semantics of insert, update and delete become 
>>>> clear: insert describes the beginning of the path that something 
>>>> travels through time, updates describe milestones along the path 
>>>> that mark changes in appearance, and delete describes the end of the 
>>>> path.  So a transition consisting of a delete and an insert that has 
>>>> no apparent effect on the database makes perfect sense because it 
>>>> describes the end of one thing and the beginning of another.
>>>
>>> This is mysticism.
>>
>>
>> What is your definition of mysticism?  According to Webster, mysticism 
>> is either
>>
>> 1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate 
>> reality reported by mystics
>> 2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or 
>> ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as 
>> intuition or insight)
>> 3a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory 
>> postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of 
>> ineffable knowledge or power
>>
>> My argument has nothing to do with a mystical union or direct 
>> communication with ultimate reality, does not even refer to God, 
>> spiritual truth or ultimate reality, nor does it concern the 
>> acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power.  I don't think there is 
>> anything vague about my argument, and it is based upon the premise 
>> that there are things in the universe of discourse that can appear 
>> different at different times.  I personally think that premise is 
>> reasonable.  If you don't, then I would like to hear your argument.

>
> (Pardon me for jumping in, ha ha, I should know better than to fall for
> these flights of fancy, I guess I'm just a sucker for alternative
> interpretations of the RM but I don't feel too guilty about that when
> even the big guns are still debating some nuances.)
>
> Come on, this is a very unreasonable thing to ask of Walter (or any of
> the few posters here nowadays), given what you wrote. Eg., things that
> appear different from what they are, not to mention time travel!

Not that that would have anything to do with "ultimate reality" or anything.

> Give us a break. Suggest you stick to what is defineable as far as a
> convention machine is concerned, eg., ask how the information principle
> has got anything to do with these musings. Then you might find a better
> reception. You keep saying "I think" without demonstration, looks like
> you really mean "I want to believe". Basically this means that you must
> convince people who are familiar with such machines how whatever you
> advocate is possible using machine language. D&D did this and you need
> to if want other people to dig whatever you're talking about. You don't
> need to quote assembly language to do this, just offer some classical
> paralles which are known to be implementable.
>
> Webster looks like it's gone downhill since I gave my old copy away,
> what the hell is "ultimate reality"? Sounds like a TV show. Anyway,
> you didn't mention #3a, the obvious link being vague speculation with
> overtones of #1 and #2, plus possibly whatever #3b et cetera mention.
> Do us a favour and look up 'mumbo-jumbo' in Webster's.
Received on Mon Mar 23 2009 - 03:09:40 CET

Original text of this message