"mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:<FtUqc.49043$TT.45616_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "Todd B" <toddkennethbenson_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ef8e4d1e.0405191337.bdf68e6_at_posting.google.com...
> > "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:<LXIqc.47648$TT.3115_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote :
> > > >
> > > > And what is the problem with The Relational Model?
> > >
> > > It has a Godel-like incompleteness:
> > >
> http://www.mountainman.com.au/software/history/relational_model_incomplete.htm
> > >
> >
> > I'm no mathematician, but didn't Godel prove that 'any' formal system
> > is incomplete?
>
> Yes, he did. But I am being specific about provision of one specific
> instance
> in which the incompleness of the RM is comprehendable.
You may consider that the RM is incomplete, but it is NOT a
"Godel-like" incompleteness: you are just attaching a fancy-sounding
but irrelevant label to your claim. It is like describing any kind of
uncertainty as "Heisenberg-like" or any kind of cat as
"Schrodinger-like"!
Received on Thu May 20 2004 - 08:11:08 CDT
