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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:07:13 -0500

Message-ID: <c_A5a.187$o03.27061381_at_mantis.golden.net>

"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 Sat Feb 22 2003 - 02:07:13 CET