Re: godel-like incompleteness of relational model

From: mountain man <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 03:11:24 GMT
Message-ID: <w%ctc.12790$L.9605@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

"Todd B" <toddkennethbenson_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ef8e4d1e.0405201405.4669b35e_at_posting.google.com...
> Paul <paul_at_test.com> wrote in message

news:<6%_qc.6458$NK4.656343_at_stones.force9.net>...
> > mountain man 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 don't quite understand what you mean here. Even if you think that
> > relational theory is missing something, I don't think it is a
> > "Godel-like" incompleteness.

>

> I'm not entirely certain, but it seems to me that any logic model that
> is consistent (i.e. theorems derived from the axioms do not contradict
> the axioms or other theorems so derived) will be unable to find
> certain truths within the system. And that seems to be Godel's sword
> in the stone (you know, he's actually not the first to come up with
> the idea, but the first to apply it to number theory). In other
> words, pretty much everything is Godel-like, unless you adapt an
> informal system, but then when you do that, you lose the power of
> logic altogether.

Not necessarily. Deduction goes out the window, true, but inference is still as valid as ever. The measure of the power of inference over the power of deduction is a tricky subject area, for sure.

...[trim]...

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Wed May 26 2004 - 22:11:24 CDT