We can use the base 2 log above to develop a model that would allow callers to radio programs like Talk of the Nation to voice their opinions in large numbers. This model doesn't utilize the database theory idea of one-to-many, as I've described, but its converse, that is many-to-one.I must point out that for my model to be realized, the radio show's producers would have to do more preparation to accommodate their mass of callers. It would take an entire week before the broadcast airs for the show's producers to set up what my model will illustrate.I don't feel this is asking too much of them.After all, the program I referenced to create my model claims to be the Talk of the Nation, thus it should attempt to really allow its multitude of callers to be heard. Right? To use Elizabethan English lest it become merely a cheap stage for thine own ends. And thou know not what that may be.
We will assume the following sets: H, A, X, and R.
H broadcasts to A, X questions (for our example, we will use 3)
Now we have H○AX That is, H relates or maps to A with X (which we will replace with 3 for the 3 questions)
X then responds with R.
XR means R maps, through the relation A○H. This means A responds to questions X with R responses, and is again a mapping of sets.
We can now summarize the process as a relation of the 4 sets, H, A, ,X and R.
H○A=X: Hosts ask the Audience questions X
A○H=R: Audiences answer the Hosts with responses R.
These relations are also represented as a 2x2 symmetric matrix, with X and R being their respective resolutions. In fact, the entire set structure of these relationships could be constructed using matrix algebra methods, but again, the limitations of the IE program make showing this difficult without special math software. In fact, some of the math characters I've already used might show up as nonsense figures to some of you.
Having developed the set structure, we can now apply these relations and show how our talk show could truly represent the Nation.
H○A=X can take the form of 3 questions as follows:
H asks, for instance
B) Why did Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidential nomination fail?
C) Will she run as an independent?
D) Will she become Barack Obama's vice-presidential running mate?
So, H (A)= B + C + D H○A=X
And A responds with
E) She was arrogant, or she lacked funds, or she miscalculated her constituency, or she lied during the campaign.Any response can be given, and an arbitrary limit set, then counted.
F) Yes or No, plus explanations, again, this response can be tabulated.
G)Will she run as an independent? Same as F.
So, A (H)= E+F+G A○H=R
Here we have a relationship that can be implemented.That is, the audience can be questioned (via email), responses counted, categorized, and finally, output sets can be analyzed, and the hosts of the program can choose any number of listeners to speak for the groups of like-minded respondents.That is, once E, F, and G have been tabulated, the hosts can call some respondents in each group and choose one to speak for all.Rather like a representative government in political science, huh?Also, notice that the One still has omnipotence here, that is, the hosts can pick and choose from the sets of responses, who will and who won't Talk to the Nation.