Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational algebra - why did SQL become the industry standard?
"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_ywho.com> wrote in message
news: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.
Who said anything about epsilon theory? Received on Fri Feb 21 2003 - 19:07:13 CST