Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3617RE: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils

Expand Messages
  • James Snell
    Jun 4 9:14 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      >"The having the idea of anything in our mind no more proves the
      >existence of that thing than the picture of a man evidences his
      >being in the world, or the visions of a dream make thereby a true
      >history."

      Unless, of course, that thing we have the idea of exists only as an
      idea. Then the very act of thinking it proves its existence -- in fact,
      demands it.

      I would agree with Parmenides statement, "Thou canst not know nor utter
      what is not -- that is impossible." However, you can, through reasoning,
      have an idea of what is not, or at least what nothing would be if it
      were possible that nothing could exist. If we talk only in terms of
      that idea (e.g., the idea of nothing) then Parmenides statement fails to
      apply.

      Anyway... I believe we've digressed at bit from the original discussion,
      no? ;-) .... We'll have to pick this up another time.

      - James


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrew Layman [mailto:yahoo@...]
      Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:13 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils


      Well, since you ask...

      "The having the idea of anything in our mind no more proves the
      existence of that thing than the picture of a man evidences his being in
      the world, or the visions of a dream make thereby a true history."

      -- John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding", 1690.

      Also, from W. T. Jones, 1952, commenting on Parmenides:

      According to Parmenides, "What is not, is not" means that there is no
      nothing, that is, that the word "nothing" does not name anything. He
      seems to have reasoned in the following way. You can try to think, for
      instance, about a unicorn; if you succeed, you are thinking about
      something, if only about a fictitious animal. But now try to think about
      nothing. You may believe that you are succeeding in doing so, but as far
      as you are thinking at all, you are thinking about something (that is,
      there is some object of thought before the mind), not about nothing. You
      may call the object about which you are thinking "nothing," but that is
      just a name. There is, and can be, no object, no nothing, named by the
      name "nothing." This apparently is what Parmenides meant when he wrote,
      "Thou canst not know nor utter what is not -- that is impossible."

      That the word "nothing" can appear in a sentence in the grammatical
      place that a noun designating something might also appear is just a
      quirk of language, of no philosophical importance, certainly of no
      metaphysical importance. That this is recognized at some level by
      everyone is evidenced by the Homeric joke of Odysseus's trick on
      Polyphemus.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "James Snell" <jsnell@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 12:16 AM
      Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils


      Lot's of good mountain tops around Seattle... Lot's of good places to
      meditate. ;-)

      It's interesting however that Parmenides own statement contradicts
      itself in a way. If Nothing cannot be thought about, how can you state
      that Nothing cannot exist? You must first have a concept of what
      Nothing is before you can postulate as to the actual existence of
      Nothing. Furthermore, if "Nothing" is defined as the total lack of
      anything, then nothing can be nothing more than an idea since there is
      always Something. If Nothing is only an idea, then the very existence
      of the idea of Nothing proves that Nothing exists. Hmmm... I'm going to
      bed now, and will do my best not to dream about "Peri Physeos". ;-)


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrew Layman [mailto:yahoo@...]
      Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:23 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils


      Thank you. This profound thought occurred to me after days of fasting
      and meditation on a mountaintop.

      However, I've discovered that I was scooped by a few millennia:

      "It is impossible for Nothing to be."
      "That which is not, is not, and cannot be or be thought about."
      -- Parmenides, circa 500 BC.

      :-)


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "James Snell" <jsnell@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:56 AM
      Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils


      >If you open an empty cupboard and don't find an elephant inside, are
      >the contents of the cupboard different from opening it and not finding
      >a bicycle? :-)

      I find myself in awe of such profound truth. ;-)



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrew Layman [mailto:yahoo@...]
      Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:44 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: mrys@...; Allen Brown; ashokma@...
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils


      If you open an empty cupboard and don't find an elephant inside, are the
      contents of the cupboard different from opening it and not finding a
      bicycle? :-)

      Most database and programming systems do not typically have specific
      types for different kinds of voids, and for good reason: Something which
      is not there does not have any properties.

      This does not mean that there is never a good use for xsi:nil='true'.
      There may be some times when one wants to indicate not merely the
      absence of knowledge, but the positive statement that it is known that
      no value exists. One may even want to add attributes to indicate why no
      value exists or is known. But, even in these cases, I do not think one
      would properly use xsi:type.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "graham glass" <graham-glass@...>
      To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:18 AM
      Subject: [soapbuilders] question re: "typed" nils


      hi guys,

      GLUE currently always sends typed data, even when the
      element is "nil". however, as i design the custom
      serialization system, i'm finding that this complicates
      things for developers who want to plug in their own serializers, and so
      i'm contemplating simplifying their live by dropping the type
      information for nils.

      based on previous postings, it sounds like sending a nil
      in the first place is not as ideal as omitting the element,
      so i figured that sending a nil without type information
      would probably not break interop.

      am i right, or is this a bad move?

      cheers,
      graham

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic