Re: Can these constraint be implemented in an RDBMS ?
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:11:30 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <c25hm1$m7k$1_at_sparta.btinternet.com>
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:c259d4$vbr$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "Roy Hann" <rhann_at_globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c249fj$fjv$1_at_titan.btinternet.com...
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:c234ev$g9q$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > It is a bit sad that the relational model is practically on its last
leg
> > > before it even has an implementation, eh? Or maybe that's the reason
> ...
> > ?
> > > [Just thought I'd show my true colors in case anyone has not realized
> that
> > > there are some database theorists that are not relational zealots -- I
> > among
> > > them] smiles. --dawn
> >
> > Only relational zealots are database theorists. All the others,
including
> > you, indulge in conjecture. Conjecture <> Theory.
> >
> > Roy Hann
>
> Show me a scientist who does not indulge in conjecture!
Conjectures are scientists' informed guesses but they do not have even provisional acceptance. Theories do. No respectable scientist would cherish a conjecture as if it were a theory.
> Surely you have an
> appreciation for hypotheses that have not yet been proven, right?
Absolutely not. The burden of proof is on the one proposing the hypothesis. My responsiblity is to be sceptical (if the hypothesis is plausible) or derisive (if it is plainly stupid).
>Afterall,
> what is a theory? I looked it up and here is one of the defintions found
at
> dictionary.com
>
> Theory, def: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
> conjecture"
I didn't think people used dictionary definitions in arguments after about grade 8. But since you have I will quote one of my own from the OED, "Theory: in loose or general sense: a hypothesis proposed as an explanation". This appears to be the sense you are using--the loose informal sense. I seem to recall you boasting about a masters degree in mathematics. I would expect you to aspire to some mathematical rigour, not loose generality.
> Of course, we don't want only untested theories. smiles. --dawn
By my understanding of the term "theory" there is no such thing as an "untested theory". There are theories, which are coherent, tested, and provisionally accepted, and there is the rest: hypothesis, conjecture, misconception, fantasy, and drivel.
Roy Hann Received on Wed Mar 03 2004 - 22:11:30 CET