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: Oracle and PICK

Re: Oracle and PICK

From: Dan <guntermannxxx_at_verizon.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:30:55 GMT
Message-ID: <zUBic.33656$Aq.16275@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>

"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:pvMNwmHwdliAFwd1_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...
> In message <2Zhgc.5856$Aq.1415_at_nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Dan
> <guntermannxxx_at_verizon.com> writes
> >You do make good points, but evolving business requirements and the
> >adaptability/flexibility of the system seem to pose as great in not
greater
> >influences to TCO. A good example of why PICK might actually have orders
of
> >magnitude higher TCO in cases where applications share data or need to
> >integrate can be found right in the comp.databases.pick newsgoup under
the
> >subject line, "Why meaningful Item ID's suck."
> >
> >Pick is so bound by its physical organization, that changes to logical
> >identifiers across a set of conceptually related items leaves it open to
no
> >other choice but to entirely redesign an entire system. In the case of
the
> >thread mentioned, the work was estimated to take nearly two years. Note
> >that Dawn, in her concern for TCO, recommends to the OP, "Best wishes and
> >make 'em pay". I'd recommend reading the whole thread to anyone who is
> >interested.
>
> But, as is pointed out, this whole thing comes down to poor design.

Let's make this premise: "If a pick application is poorly designed, then it will break and have to be redesigned."

Let's assign A to the proposition "the pick application is/was poorly designed."
Let's assign B to the proposition "the pick application breaks." Let's assign C to the proposition "the pick application needs to be redesigned."

So, we get If A, then B ^ C.

Now, in the thread, the following were posited: The pick application is broken and it will have to be redesigned.

We then get the following argument, without even considering whether the premises are true or not:
A->(B ^ C)
B
C

Therefore A.

I realize you have a preference for inductive reasoning, but perhaps you can find and point out why this argument form is invalid using rules of inference (i.e. modus pollens)?

Regards,

Dan Received on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 17:30:55 CDT

Original text of this message

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