Re: object algebra

> > It is not that you cant represent 4-th dimensional, trees and complex
> > data structures using the "rectangularish" building block provided by
> > RDM, it's just more difficult and sometimes impractical.
>
> What are you using to measure difficulty?

One may not realize the difficulty until one attempts to provided an equivalent solution (NULL-less and normalized) to www.xdb1.com/Example/Ex076.asp

> To my mind, what is difficult is not using a table to model a tree
> but rather, using a tree to model a table.

Using a more general model (TDM) to solve a problem will be more difficult than using a less general model (RDM), assuming the problem is within the less general model's scope. But when the problem begin to exceed the simpler model's scope, it is actually easier with the other. I am try to demonstrate this by requesting someone solve www.xdb1.com/Example/Ex076.asp

Here is a poor but relevant analogy:
Using Newtonian to solve a falling stone problem is easier then using Quantum, until we get beyond Newtonian's scope. Received on Wed Feb 25 2004 - 23:56:17 CET