Re: Database design

Mark Johnson wrote:
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Cleveland served BOTH before and after Harrison, which means that
there is NOT a clear order on a by-president basis.

No, not in terms of a non-network tree. A list. A roster.

There are partial order relations and total order relations. There are
other kinds of order relations as well but let's not lay it on too
thick.

For any list, we can construct a pair of relations that contains the
same information. We do not need the use of an ordered collection
to do so.

In fact, let's pull a basic set theory book off the shelf and look up
"list."

"A 'finite sequence' over set A is a function from {1,2,...,m} into A,
and
it is usually denoted by:

a_1, a_2,...,a_m

Such a finite sequence is sometimes called a 'list' ..."

In other words, we can use set theory to define lists without
reference to any ordered collection.


According to the theory, relations are unordered sets of facts.

But according to someone else, here, sets are always unordered.
It's simply redundant to speak of unordered sets, by that thinking.

That's right!


And the
relation, itself, is said to correspond to a set, though I'm not sure
that's true.

A relation is a kind of set.


It contains entities, or tuples, instances, records, what
have you, which consists of fields, attributes, again, what have you.

"Elements" or "members" are the usual terms for what a set contains.
"Attributes" is what we usually speak of the subparts of a relation
element as consisting of, although I prefer the simpler "fields" these
days.


So you would phrase it, a relation is a set of sets which members are
2-tuples each being a name and value.

Um, no. A binary relation is a set of ordered pairs or, equivalently,
a subset of a product of two sets. The more general n-ary relation
used in database theory is a subset of a product of n sets, n >= 0.
In n-ary sets, we usually speak of the attributes as being identified
by name rather than by one of {left, right}.

In other words, the tuples are not in any order.

Right.


Your need for "proper order" is a fabrication in your own mind.

My need for my own that is mine, etc. Look, let's take this very
sentence.

Your need for "proper order" is a fabrication in your own mind.

If those words appear in any other order then they will say to you
something else, or nothing at all. Let's experiment:

These experiments don't show anything that isn't obvious: namely,
that there is information in the order of the words. But no one
ever said a sentence was a set of words!

And anyway, the value of paragraph order is being overstated.
There are tons of things that can be done with text without
reference to word order. An index springs to mind.

As per your earlier request, here are four paragraphs of text
out of order. I have reversed the order of the paragraphs that
the author intended. I picked a Housman poem, "The New Mistress".
Housman doesn't have a lot of four stanza poems, but this
one is nice.

The New Mistress (in reverse stanza order)
A E Housman

I will go where I am wanted, where there's room for one or two,
And the men are none too many for the work there is to do;
Where the standing line wears thinner and the dropping dead lie thick;
And the enemies of England they shall see me and be sick.

I will go where I am wanted, for the sergeant does not mind;
He may be sick to see me but he treats me very kind:
He gives me beer and breakfast and a ribbon for my cap,
And I never knew a sweetheart spend her money on a chap.

I will go where I am wanted, to a lady born and bred
Who will dress me free for nothing in a uniform of red;
She will not be sick to see me if I only keep it clean:
I will go where I am wanted for a soldier of the Queen.

'Oh, sick I am to see you, will you never let me be?
You may be good for something but you are not good for me.
Oh, go where you are wanted, for you are not wanted here.'
And that was all the farewell when I parted from my dear.

----------------------------

As you can see, the poem works perfectly well with the
paragraphs in reverse order, as I had predicted.


Everything in its proper order. And that seems to be considered not
merely a luxury in such a model that you defend, but an irrelevancy.
And that makes such a model - itself - rather irrelevant. Does it not?

You are noting the definition of set, and assuming that it is thought
that this definition is intended to describe all collections; it is
not.
You have reversed the process.


There is a reality. By comparison, theoretical physics may appear to
be a lot of assertion and imagining and such. But there is something
against which the theory is tested, something that makes the equations
right or wrong. And that's physical reality.

Physics is science; it is bound to physical reality. Math is not.
Math is only bound to math. Objecting to a mathematical theory
by analogy to the physical world is invalid. Were we to limit
ourselves to that, we would have to discard most of math,
including negative numbers, complex numbers, infinities, the
axiom of choice, and more. Heck, even fractions; you can't
show me half of anything. That's not half an orange; that's a
huge collection of atoms. We would also have to get rid of
zero, because you can't show me zero of something, either;
I don't see it!

You may think I'm being facetious, but I'm not--all of these
advances in math were initially objected to by analogy to
the real world. But, as it turns out, analogy to the real
world is not a useful way to reason about math. (Although
the reverse, using math to reason about the real world,
does turn out to be useful. This is why math is useful.)


Marshall

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chez Watt: Prime Idiocy
    ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... I can now understand why you haven't attempted any math in support of your ... There is a disclaimer that the lists are only ... If you'd like me to stop pointing out the stupid things you say, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... >> infinite set of natural numbers does not contain an infinite number. ... the OLD natural numbers, the OLD real numbers, and the OLD lists ... There is no such thing as "the language of math". ... infitary mathematical langauge and branches of math that deal with them. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... >> infinite set of natural numbers does not contain an infinite number. ... the OLD natural numbers, the OLD real numbers, and the OLD lists ... There is no such thing as "the language of math". ... infitary mathematical langauge and branches of math that deal with them. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: One approach for SR.
    ... >slit experiments in time seem to contradict the 3D ... what I am saying, one should be careful. ... problem into a real physical reality, and the math ... If we both work with the same physical reality, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Chez Watt: Prime Idiocy
    ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... I can now understand why you haven't attempted any math in support of your ... There is a disclaimer that the lists are only ... If I am a fucking retard, then why argue with a fucking ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading