Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Date's First Great Blunder

Re: Date's First Great Blunder

From: Neo <neo55592_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 21 Apr 2004 13:08:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4b45d3ad.0404211208.24cfcfea@posting.google.com>


> > A similar type of problem exist with RDM. As we apply RDM to a broader
> > scope, it becomes less practical.
>
> So relativistic quantum theory refines or amends Newton mechanics.

Whether something "refines" or "amends" is mostly a personal point-of-view and irrelavent.

> Are you suggesting that we should amend the RDM?

No. One just needs to realize that RDM has a certain scope/range of applications for which it is appropriate. Unfortunately, RDMer believe RDM's scope is all encompassing. The inability of RDMers to implement equivalent/practical solutions to some type of problems should cause them to rethink.

> Please note that quantum theory does not NULLIFY
> the validity of Newton mechanics ...

Depends on what scope is being covered. Quantum's scope of "validity" is larger than Newton's scope. The model/math of both are consistent to themselves but only "match" reality within a certain scope.  

> So to complete the analogy, you should give us suggessions on how to
> add to, or refine the relational theory, but instead you are giving us
> alternatives. Einstein did not give us an alternative to Newtonian
> machanics, he refined or ammended it.

Whether someone gives a "refinement" vs an "alternative" is mostly irrelavent. A particular model's scope of validity/efficiency/practicality is more relevant. And also keeping in mind that consistency within a model does not necessarily imply its validity beyond the scope that it has been verified (although the preassumtion would be a logical initial step). Received on Wed Apr 21 2004 - 15:08:26 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US