Re: Pizza Example
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:53:41 GMT
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > "Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:j4m$VcBg5zcAFwMZ_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...
> > > > The problem I see with relational, is that it does not cope with -
> > > > indeed, denies the existence of - emergent complexity.
> > >
> > > I'll address the specific example below, but what does this mean in
> > I have learnt from past experience that Wol likes to throw in
> > irrelevant but important-sounding scientific concepts from time to
> > time. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Priciple comes up quite often, along
> > with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and of course Relativity v.
> > Newton! The relational model is deemed wanting because it fails to
> > take these into account, though it is far from clear how MV or
> > anything else does other, nor why they should.
> > It's best to try to ignore these digressions, but I usually fail to do
> > so...
> I tend to agree, although I have learned that Wol has a point even if
> obscured by his seeming lack of interest in or respect for mathematical
> models. I agree with him wholeheartedly that a model is a model -- just
> that, no more. Pointing out both flaws and usefulness in particular
> is helpful. Thinking all mathematical models are hogwash is not, however.
> I don't need to emperically determine that 1000 + 1000 = 2000 because I
> a model, a mathematical theory, that starts with some axioms and builds on
> that and that convinces me, without any emperical data, that if I have
> objects and add in another 1000 objects, then I will have 2000.
> So in spite of the shared appreciation that I have for the underdocumented
> PICK "model" (loose use of the term in this case) along with Wol, he and I
> have had this mathematics vs science discussion before in other forums.
> we have a mathematical model that is useful AND we have some emperical
> to back up the usefulness of the model, then that would be great. I think
> "language" belongs in there somewhere too, but not sure exactly where.
> I don't know of any data approaches that have both a solid mathematical
> model (and no, it will not be both complete and consistent) and emperical
> data that gives evidence of the usefulness of the model.
> But if anyone else does, I'm interested. --dawn
I have no doubt that Wol knows his stuff when it comes to physics, far better than I do. I do have severe doubts about the applicability of reasoning about physical models to computing, though we're getting into philosophy here.
I'm certainly willing to entertain language notions - I just haven't heard anything concrete enough to serve as the basis for a data model. Loose correspondence to English is, in my opinion, not a good metric.