I just started reading Science and Sanity, by Alfred Korzybski, first
edition published 1933. I was quite impressed by the following line,
derivatives of which I've seen in this group numerous times.

"Because relations can be defined as multi-dimensional order, ...
after naming the un-speakable entities, all experience can be
described in terms of relations of multi-dimensional order."

Anyone else interested in general semantics and it's correspondences
to the relational model?

On 11 mai, 07:50, Nilone <rea... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Defining relations as *Multidimensional order* sounds more like an
obscure buzz word than a serious definition.

On May 11, 2:20*pm, Cimode <cim... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
I was thinking about Date's admonition against "flat relations".
Perhaps I'm stretching it too far.

Another quote, and the last one from me if this topic doesn't interest
anyone else. I find the book fascinating and very relevant.

"It is necessary now to compare the relational forms with the subject-
predicate form of representation, which structurally underlies the
traditional Aristotelian-system and two-valued 'logic'. The
structural question arises whether all relations can be reduced to the
subject-predicate forms of language."

"Symmetrical relations, which hold between B and A whenever they hold
between A and B, seem plausibly expressed in the subject-predicate
language. A symmetrical and transitive relation, such as that of
'equality', could be expressed as the possession of a common
'property'. A non-transitive relation, such as that of 'inequality',
could also be considered as representing 'different properties'. But
when we analyze asymmetrical relations, the situation becomes
obviously different, and we find it a structural impossibility to give
an adequate representation in terms of 'properties' and subject-
predicates."

Nilone wrote:
From years ago, I remember marketing people talking about 'flat files'.
They seemed to attach great importance to the term, as if it meant a
way to organize thoughts with absolute certainty. At the time I
guessed they meant eliminating repeating groups, which were common in
file-based systems, it seemed reminiscent of one or two of Codd's early
examples. Don't know, maybe some commercialist bastardized that to
'flat relations', without explaining just how one could flatten a
relation, nor just what a non-flat relation is.

On 5/18/2010 10:59 AM, paul c wrote:
static resource on our web document root. " Much of our content is
images/js/css, which are all "flat files".

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

On 11 mei, 17:27, Nilone <rea... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Cimode's reply is spot-on.

And I fail to see what "general semantics and it's correspondences to
the relational model?" has to do with this delusionary nonsense of
"relations being flat".

I'm reminded of this expression in the local dialect of my native
language, which speaks of "flat baby's" for "only-just-borns" (in
which 'flat' refers to the usual viscosity of their excrements, rather
than to their physical height ...).

But in natural language, it is perfectly normal and perfectly
acceptable to employ idiomatic expressions and figurative speech. In
discussions which are supposed to be scientific, that is much less the
case.

Relations are n-dimensional, with n being equal to the degree of the
relation concerned. That's a well-established fact.
Relation variables have a corresponding (logical) predicate, which is
supposed to have the same "degrees of freedom" (logical variables ?)
as the degree of the relation variable and the relations it can
contain. Replacing each "logical variable" occurring in the predicate
with the appropriate value from a tuple from the body of the relation
that is the current value of the relvar, yields a logical proposition
that is (assumed to be) true. That's a well-established fact too.

Now since "semantics" essentially means "meaning", and "meaning" is
formalized in logic as predicates and propositions, that's where you
have your "correspondence between semantics and the relational model".

But perhaps I'm simplifying too far.

On May 18, 11:19*pm, Erwin <e.sm... (AT) myonline (DOT) be> wrote:
I read "multi-dimensional order" as "n-dimensional data structure",
and it seemed to me that Korzybski aptly described the relational
model and its possible application to language and mental models of
empirical data. As I progress through the book, I find that
perspective reinforced.

I suspect this thread leans too far into the philosophical for the
regulars of c.d.t. I derive my desire to understand the relational
model from its value as a metaphysical model of reality.

Well stated.

Most of the book discusses exactly that. The author aims to replace
the mereological view of reality with one based on relations. In
fact, he goes as far as to reduce domains to an equivalence relation
over the attributes of relations, which just blew my mind.

On 19 mai, 10:43, Nilone <rea... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Quite frankly, I see no advantage into creating obscure terminology
for already established meanings.

starting from a potential application, if such application is
possible. Do you think one can truly understand the process of
uranium enrichment by exposing oneself to an atomic explosion ?

designate things that already have specific terminology in RM.

implications of RM, if any.

IMHO

Nilone wrote:

Have you read William Kent's /Data and Reality/ ?