Re: DB clasical structure violation

From: Alfredo Novoa <>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 20:27:05 GMT
Message-ID: <>

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:20:18 +0100, "Anthony W. Youngman" <> wrote:

>I would say a theory is a logically and mathematically consistent set of
>statements. That's pretty much your second definition.
>This is then proved (using statistics) to be a reasonable approximation
>to what is observed in the real world, at which point it then falls
>within the scope of your first definition.

It is not only theory, it is scientifical theory.

>Take Newton's theory of Gravity ... if we exclude "fast" moving objects
>(eg > c/10) and "massive" objects (eg > earth), we can prove that it
>matches the real world perfectly well for our purposes.
>I look at SQL and set theory in exactly the same way - set theory is a
>self-consistent view, that, within limitations matches the real world

Set theory is not this. Set theory is a tautological abstract reasoning, it is not based on the real world although it may be inspired on it.

Set theory (and mathematics) is not science in the strict sense of the word. Set theory and mathematics are tautological (orthogonal to the real world).

>I find SQL
>wonderful as an aid, but horribly restrictive as a constraint. You can't
>fit a square in a circular hole.

SQL is seriously flawed. See: and Chris Date's books.

>>Who designed this crazy language anyhow? (anyway?)

It was an incomplete experimental prototype.

Codd warned IBM about it, but they wanted to make fast cash. Now we are still burdened with a bad intergalactic standard. Received on Mon Jul 01 2002 - 22:27:05 CEST

Original text of this message