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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:32:02 -0800

Message-ID: <iev5a.9$N33.213_at_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 - 20:32:02 CET