Re: SQL (was: Why using "Group By")

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_ywho.com> wrote in message news:Serca.9$k63.137_at_news.oracle.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:Rlqca.49$fF4.5348396_at_mantis.golden.net...
> > Post-relational will not evolve from SQL. It would require sufficient
> > theoretical advances in mathematics or logic to develop a new logical
> model
> > based on new theory.
>
> Why dismissing a possibility that ad-hoc SQL development might provide
some
> insights before theory catches on?

SQL has too many obvious flaws. Is there a possibility that someone working with SQL will have a sudden flash of insight that eventually changes our understanding of the universe? It is certainly no more likely than an engineer taking a bath will advance science or that an office clerk will change our understanding of some of the most fundamental properties of the universe. Anything can and sometimes does happen.

Still, I don't see the above as reason to forego showers or to employ clerks on easily automated and tedious tasks.

> > Do you have an example problem requiring recursion for which transitive
> > closure provides no solution?
>
> Please express 5! via transitive closure. You are not allowed to represent
> multiplication as sum of logariphms (you wouldn't use transitive closure
> with that approach, anyway). My solution
>
> select
> case when prior factorial is NULL then 1 else prior factorial*i end AS
> factorial
> from integers
> order by i

product((Integer | value between 1 and 5 ){value})

I don't need any kind of recursion for that simple problem. Received on Fri Mar 14 2003 - 22:41:33 CST