Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

From: Hugo Kornelis <hugo_at_pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:22:34 +0200
Message-ID: <r6vka0l6hk7j2837n86gud18r963jrq5v4_at_4ax.com>


On 18 May 2004 13:52:07 -0700, Neo wrote:

>> Who is older, John, Mary or Fido?
>> How can XDb1 (or any other type-less database) answer the last
>> question if the user has provided the following input:
>>
>> over-the-hill isa age.
>> very-young isa age.
>> 7 isa age.
>> john is over-the-hill.
>> mary is very-young.
>> fido is 7.
>
>Again, the example provided earlier was simple. 7 can be further
>classified as an integer (via 7 isa integer) thus allowing operations
>appropriate to the integer class (aka "data type" in RM).
>
>> Most computers I have used will classify very-young as greater than
>> over-the-hill and will refuse to compare either of these to 7.
>> Like I said - there may be specific situations where a product such as
>> XDb1 has it's use. But it's not (to quote the web site) "the future of
>> databases" - not even remotely!
>
>If I include human brains as computers (which they are), many of them
>will come to the correct answer. XDb1 is partially a feeble attempt to
>model and implement a db like that between our ears.

Hi Neo,

Just caught this message. I think I addressed most points in my previous posts. Except for the human brain part.

This places XDb1 in a completely different league from current RDBMS's, in my eyes. If XDb1's main objective is emulating the human brain, I have to consider it a very interesting research project, probably worthy of loads of government and university funding.

Until now, based on your postings and the information about XDb1 on the web site, I was under the impression that XDb1 was meant as a serious alternative for current databases. Clearly, I was wrong.

But I still fail to see how the $1000 challenge that started this discussion fits into this picture.....

Seriously now: if you one day really succeed in making a program that will gladly accept data such as "very-young" and "over-the-top" and still come to correct conclusion on only that data, *then* you can truly say that you hold the future of databases in your hands. As well as the future of AI. But until that day has come, you'd better learn a little modesty.

Best, Hugo

-- 

(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
Received on Tue May 18 2004 - 23:22:34 CEST

Original text of this message