Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational algebra - why did SQL become the industry standard?

Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational algebra - why did SQL become the industry standard?

From: Mikito Harakiri <mikharakiri_at_ywho.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:32:02 -0800
Message-ID: <iev5a.9$N33.213@news.oracle.com>


"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:8sl5a.167$Nn.17704103_at_mantis.golden.net...
> > Without say a non-abstract REAL number type, a POINT type with rational
> > CARTESIAN and POLAR poss representations would need to be limited to
> exactly
> > those point values that are expressable using RATIONALs in both of the
two
> > representations. Ruling out X=1, Y=1 for one.
>
> I disagree that it really messes anything up. The rationals are already
> approximations. X=1 and Y=1 really represents a point in some small area
of
> 1-epsilon to 1+epsilon. As long as the polar representation has a
> representable value in that area, I see no problems. Even if the polar
> representation has no value in that area, but a point near that area I'm
> still okay with it.

I don't think epsion theory would advance you far.

Integers and Rationals are a closed form Number representations. So do Algebraic Numbers. With all due respect, float numbers are not. What Paul might be saying is that the computer system must support Algebraic Numbers natively: neither Rationals, nor cheesy floats are good enough for presize manipulation with planar geometry transformations. Received on Fri Feb 21 2003 - 13:32:02 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US