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

From: Todd B <toddkennethbenson_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 24 May 2004 17:59:54 -0700
Message-ID: <ef8e4d1e.0405241659.7e36cdb9_at_posting.google.com>


"Bill H" <wphaskett_at_THISISMUNGEDatt.net> wrote in message news:<g7psc.36419$zw.14141_at_attbi_s01>...
> 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).

Yes, in a formal system, everything that fails to show consistency becomes invalid (and is ultimately ignored or denied due to the fact that it lacks basic logic - like: A proves B, and B proves C, but C contradicts A - that would be a very simple example of an informal system). At least that's the way I understand it.

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

I wouldn't suggest that logic is 'worthless', or comment that any questions that cannot be answered are 'meaningless'; just that logic is not as complete as most logicians or mathematicians would like it to be.

Now Paul has a point about first order logic - and its completeness - that I would like to look into. I'm still betting that my interpretation of Godel's theorem is correct in the sense that 'Any formal system that is consistent is definitely _not_ complete'.

Is any formal system useful? That's a whole different argument to me, because any formal or informal system can be put to use. So, in a way, there is still hope for us logical (and illogical) people :)

I guess I'm ranting about this topic and I'm sure everyone in this group is hoping I'll shut up. So, before they tell me that, and before I step out of line (too late), since I don't have the impressive logic and math background that some of you have, I sum up Godel's Incompleteness theorem like so: "Within a formal system, there are things that are true within that system that you cannot prove/derive within that system". Whew.

Todd Received on Tue May 25 2004 - 02:59:54 CEST

Original text of this message