Re: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving
From: Costin Cozianu <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:30:41 -0700
Message-ID: <bn70g5$tk1e1$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>
> So we have to disregard relational as a matter of principle, too :-)
>
> Relational has NOTHING to do with Science, and everything to do with
> maths.
>
> Please tell me how I can predict the future using the relational model -
> please ... that way relational can be proved false, and that way
> relational can be proved scientific. Without that, relational is
> provably UNscientific.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:30:41 -0700
Message-ID: <bn70g5$tk1e1$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In article <bn4ri6$rscgq$1_at_ID-152540.news.uni-berlin.de>, Costin Cozianu
> <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> writes
>
>>Without a scientific work describing what the features are, what are the >>integrity consttraints, expressive power, is it relationally complete, is the >>language declarative, etc, etc, I'm sorry but I can only disregard your model as >>a matter of principle, just the same that we have to disregard anybody who >>claims that he has a perpetuum mobile, or he has a valid pyramidal scheme.
>
>
> So we have to disregard relational as a matter of principle, too :-)
>
> Relational has NOTHING to do with Science, and everything to do with
> maths.
>
> Please tell me how I can predict the future using the relational model -
> please ... that way relational can be proved false, and that way
> relational can be proved scientific. Without that, relational is
> provably UNscientific.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
Oh, but you're probably adhering to a popperistic definition of science.
I'm sorry, but Popper is for weenies; real men do Mathematics.
Cheers,
Costin
Received on Thu Oct 23 2003 - 00:30:41 CEST