 | |
POOD and the Unique Name Assumption
comp.databases.theory comp.databases.theory
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
POOD and the Unique Name Assumption -
06-09-2008
, 08:02 AM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb? And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what impact does that have on POOD? |
But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named
is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.
As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:
2+0 = 2-0
Marshall
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.