Re: Date is Incomplete - database application software and database theory
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 02:17:15 GMT
Message-ID: <LyUqc.49046$TT.24861_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:utPqc.308$jd5.112_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:c5Fqc.47229$TT.28428_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
> > news:40a9e021.715949_at_news.tehnicom.net...
> > > On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, "mountain man"
> > > <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Applications depend on the data management approach
> > > >> but the contrary is not true.
> > > >
> > > >The modern database systems management paradigm turns
> > > >a blind eye to the applications environment
> > >
> > > As it should be. Theory should not be limited by the current
> > > technology. Theory is the basis for future technology.
> >
> > The theory needs to address current technology.
>
> That's absolutely silly. Certainly new technologies can proceed without a
> formal basis, and decent ones can even suggest a new formal basis as a
> subject of theoretical study, but this is purely suggestion. To suggest
that
> theory address all current technologies is nonsense - the cart leading the
> horse, the tail wagging the dog. Not everything that exists in reality is
> worthy of theoretical study.
>> > technology allows application data objects, in fact promotes
> > Current
> > these, but the RM theory does not address this.
>
> Not true at all, though again your terminology confuses me: what is an
> "application object"? Relational was invented to benefit applications.
>
> > Current technology is the stepping stone to future technology.
>
> Not always - theory is also a stepping-stone. Not everything that exists
> today will survive, nor should it.
>> > Well I have not yet received any form of logical reason why
> > > >It's easy to point a finger in the other direction, but in
> > > >the final analysis examination of contributing causes to
> > > >the current state of the nation includes the "paradigm"
> > > >and its incompleteness.
> > >
> > > Only in your personal analysis, and I am afraid it is very wrong.
> >
> > the analysis is wrong, so I am unlikely to alter it.
>
> You've offered no analysis. All you've said is "the relational model
doesn't
> address X [where X is something I still have trouble understanding],
> therefore it is incomplete." No analysis at all. It would help if you'd
> offer something resembling a beginning of such theory; not all the
details,
> but something that suggests you understand what the relational model does
> say. I simply don't know what you're looking for.
>> > theory is not modern, it is decades old. It reflects a practice
> > Your opinion does not reflect the increasing trends
> > of investment in these machines since 1979.
> >
> > And as I have pointed out before, the current data management
> > that went out of date 25 years ago.
>
> Out of date implies obsolete, which implies that something newer and
better
> exists. What is that something?
>> > procedures: application system components totally defined within
> > > Nonsenses. The division between applications and DBMS's is a perfecty
> > > valid principle now.
> >
> > This assertion fails to understand the nature of RDBMS stored
> > the RDBMS.
>
> Simply put, those components are not application components. They're
> database components, which (like other database components) are used by
> applications.
>> >
> > > It is as valid as the ancient "divide and
> > > conquer" principle, and a derivation of it.
> > Yeah, it is barbaric.
>
> So Big Ball Of Mud is more civilized?
>> >
> > > What don't you like in such division?
> > It is out of date.
>
> The number 0 is also old, though not as old as the number 1. I suggest we
> retire it as well.
The number 0 and 1 are the same age in Indian mathematics it is only in western mathematics, which emerged well after, that this differentiation that you mention above arises.
Incompleteness, of a Godel nature, is evident in the RM http://www.mountainman.com.au/software/history/relational_model_incomplete.htm
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
Received on Thu May 20 2004 - 04:17:15 CEST