Re: Database design, Keys and some other things


JOG wrote:
> I think it comes down to the fact, it is easy to confuse a predicate
> with the situation it describes, but there is a real difference.
> Consider the predicate:
>
> "The sky is blue in the daytime"
>
> This has may be represented a a set of three items {sky, blue,
> daytime}.

I am sorry to say but you are confused. 'The sky is blue in the
daytime' ain't no predicate. It's an [ambiguous] proposition which
could be false or true if it were not ambiguous. It may be useful to
know that the predicate's interpretation is not just any set, but a
mathematical relation. What relation are talking about ?

>But we can say some extra things about this set. First who
> stated it - me. Second when it was stated. Third that it is the first
> thing I have said on the matter. Fourth, we can comment on the truth of
> the statement - that it, in england, is only true.. say 25% of the
> time. tops.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

>
> Now these are all pieces of information about the PREDICATE itself, not
> the situation it describes. They are metadata, and encoding them with
> the information about the situation is entirely incorrect - they are
> attributes of the container, not of the content.
>
> Mathematically we might write:
>
> P = {"sky", "blue", "daytime"}
> Author = {(P, "James")}
> Created = {(P, "27th Sept 2005")}
> etc...
>
> Saying { sky, blue, daytime, James, "27th Sept 2005", 25% } is wholly
> wrong. It is a confusion of data and meta data.

That's a confusion allright, but of a different kind.

>
> A surrogate key, created specifically to represent a statement, is no
> different. It is an artificial way of referencing the predicate. This
> is meta_data about the predicate and has no place existing in the same
> area as the elements of the predicate - the real information, that
> exists in the real world.

This just does not make any sense.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Database design, Keys and some other things
    ... It is an artificial way of referencing the predicate. ... to me, as far as db or maybe i should say the RM rather than db as that is my interest, whether some value is metadata seems relative to the way it is used. ... i think this would mean that so as far as as the RM is concerned, the quote could equally mean "the daytime sky above James was 25% blue on Sept 27th" as well as lots of other things such as "James gets it right 25% of the time", or even "the sky *wasn't* blue, etc.". ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
    ... nor it is equivalent to any Predicate Q in one variable that use x. ... No, you confusion is void. ... what remains is to prove that neither xey nor yex. ... Every finite set is P_not embedded. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Database design, Keys and some other things
    ... I think it comes down to the fact, it is easy to confuse a predicate ... "The sky is blue in the daytime" ... It is a confusion of data and meta data. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)