Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

Todd:

Does this pass the "reasonableness" test? The thought that: ...there are questions that can't be answered so they're meaningless and, thus, ignored (so the system is still complete) doesn't say much for consistency (i.e. anything that shows inconsistency is ignored so we still have consistency).

With postulates like these, I'm depressed about getting A's in college logic and statistics classes, as they were obviously worthless. :-)

Bill

"Todd B" <toddkennethbenson_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message [snipped]

> > Also, does it actually matter? Because for example suppose I'm right and
> > relational theory is complete, there are still questions like the
> > transitive closure which can't be answered. That's because these
> > questions can't even be written down in first order logic so they are
> > meaningless within the system (so the system is still complete). But
> > they are meaningful in a "real-world" sense, because we are thinking in
> > a larger system which includes second-order logic.
Received on Mon May 24 2004 - 18:09:49 CEST