Re: foundations of relational theory?

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message news:<7Czlb.35$UP3.188_at_news.oracle.com>... [snip]
>
> Likewise, I believe that Pick database is not worth of my attention. It has
> no credible intellectuals backing it up, it's a tiny niche, its
> mathematically noninteresting.

That's interesting. What I consider to be a "credible intellectual" must differ from your set. Indeed, everyone must have their own set. My set is not fixed. I might well learn something today that will add someone to the list of intellectuals I consider to have credibility. Equally, I might learn something that shatters my belief in the credibility of someone I previously respected. Further, I might consider someone to have credibility in one field and not in others. I would not, for example, consider someone with no knowledge of - or interest in - a subject to be a credible authority on that subject. For example, I might consider Noam Chomsky or Carl Sagan to be credible intellectuals. If that's my full list, and I read everything they've ever written and been known to comment on, then would it be fair of me to conclude as a consequence that the Pick database is not worthy of my attention? or that (dare I say it?) "Mikito Harakiri" is not worth my attention? or any number of other inappropriate conclusions? Similarly, if my list includes people with a great knowledge of SQL-relational databases who also know little if anything (and don't want to know anything) about Pick databases, would it be fair to draw the same conclusion? There's obviously something wrong here don't you think? Do the math. Received on Thu Oct 23 2003 - 00:55:35 CEST