darn this internet + my curiosity. I wondered if there was something like an “algebra of relationships” [all the ways one thing can relate to another]. and indeed there is: “Relational Algebra”. So, I looked at the Wikipedia. I saw the familiar terms that I never cared much for and then I see this… “The most complete set of results of this nature is Chapter C of Carnap (1958)….[didn’t] formulate [his] results using the RA [Relational Algebra] of this entry, or in an equational manner.” Wait! That’s what I want. Talk about it NOT in an equation way… and different from the same-old way I keep seeing it which I never cared for. But what was this mysterious “Chapter C of Carnap (1958)”? So after a little searching, I find Rudolf Carnap (1958) Introduction to Symbolic Logic and its Applications. [I didn’t look at the References at the bottom or I would’ve found it; instead I went the long way ’round]. So, this should be interesting.

darn this internet + my curiosity. I wondered if there was something like an “algebra of relationships” [all the ways one thing can relate to another]. and indeed there is: “Relational Algebra”.

So, I looked at the Wikipedia. I saw the familiar terms that I never cared much for and then I see this…

“The most complete set of results of this nature is Chapter C of Carnap (1958)….[didn’t] formulate [his] results using the RA [Relational Algebra] of this entry, or in an equational manner.”

Wait! That’s what I want. Talk about it NOT in an equation way… and different from the same-old way I keep seeing it which I never cared for.

But what was this mysterious “Chapter C of Carnap (1958)”?

So after a little searching, I find Rudolf Carnap (1958) Introduction to Symbolic Logic and its Applications. [I didn’t look at the References at the bottom or I would’ve found it; instead I went the long way ’round].

So, this should be interesting.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× four = 12

Leave a Reply