# Re: Pizza Example

Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:53:41 GMT

Message-ID: <9%Ycc.9242$9y5.2678_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:c51das$u$1_at_news.netins.net...

> "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message

*> news:c0e3f26e.0404070845.3b10639_at_posting.google.com...
**> > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
**> news:<hARcc.51781$ca7.11809_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
**> > > "Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
**> > > news:j4m$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
**> general?
**> >
**> > 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*

models

> is helpful. Thinking all mathematical models are hogwash is not, however.

*> I don't need to emperically determine that 1000 + 1000 = 2000 because I*

have

> 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*

1000

> 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.*

If

> we have a mathematical model that is useful AND we have some emperical

data

> 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.

- erk