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

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:07:13 -0500
Message-ID: <c_A5a.187$>

"Mikito Harakiri" <> wrote in message news:iev5a.9$
> "Bob Badour" <> wrote in message
> news:8sl5a.167$
> > > Without say a non-abstract REAL number type, a POINT type with
> > > 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

Original text of this message