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: Anthony W. Youngman <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:55:47 +0100
Message-ID: <45Yp1jEj9DiAFw+F@thewolery.demon.co.uk>


In message <e9d83568.0404200114.77dd445d_at_posting.google.com>, Lauri Pietarinen <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> writes
>neo55592_at_hotmail.com (Neo) wrote in message
>news:<4b45d3ad.0404192220.58734678_at_posting.google.com>...
>> > Perhaps more importantly, it accounted for the data available to Isaac
>> > Newton, correctly and elegantly. Both quantum mechanics and relativity
>> > were proposed to account for data unavailable in Newton's day.
>>
>> Newton's model is "incorrect" in the sense that scientists were
>> expecting it to give the correct answers when applied to smaller and
>> smaller things. Instead they found it began deviating more and more.
>>
>> A similar type of problem exist with RDM. As we apply RDM to a broader
>> scope, it becomes less practical. Would you be willing to implement a
>> RDM solution to such a problem?
>
>So relativistic quantum theory refines or amends Newton mechanics. Are
>you suggesting that we should amend the RDM? Please note that quantum
>theory does not NULLIFY the validity of Newton mechanics, and actually
>builds on it. It's like negative integers, rational and real numbers
>actually building ontop of the foundation of positive integers instead
>of claiming that they are useless.

Actually, relativity REPLACES, not refines or amends, Newtonian Mechanics. I think you've got it back to front. But, more importantly, it tells us when Newtonian Mechanics is a good approximation and when it is not. So we can use Newtonian Mechanics with confidence in certain situations, knowing that it will not bite us because the "more accurate but more complicated" relativity theory tells us the discrepancy is insignificant.
>
>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.

Nope. We should come up with a new theory, of which relational is a simplification. Then we can set boundaries where we can say "we know relational will work under these circumstances, so we'll use it here because the maths is simpler; and we know relational won't work there so we'll use the new theory because it works."

I'll not comment on RDM because I don't know what it is. But it sounds like its limitations are known, and if that's the case I'd be only to happy to use it WITHIN those limitations if I knew what they were.
>
>regards,
>Lauri Pietarinen

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
Received on Thu Apr 22 2004 - 16:55:47 CDT

Original text of this message

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