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

From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:35:30 +0100
Message-ID: <lXouc.9145$NK4.1185630@stones.force9.net>

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

>> Given that your axioms and your interpretation are correct, then I 
>> think you can show the DBMS proof is true in real life (for the 
>> reasons given above and in previous posts).

>
> What do you mean by interpretation? Do you mean the philosophy of data
> by which you convert your mathematical description to a real-world
> description?

Yes.

>> I know that the language used by logicians can seem very inpenetrable 
>> but I think it does actually make sense; it's not just a conspiracy of 
>> people talking gibberish and pretending to understand each other.

>
> But logic is a branch of mathematics. As such, it has nothing to do with
> philosophy and the matching up of theory with reality. This is a matter
> of science and experiment, not logic.

I agree.

I don't think what I'm saying is that controversial really - it's really just what you would intuitively expect, expressed more rigorously in mathematical jargon. Tony explains it very well in another branch of this thread.

I'm not Pick-bashing either, what I'm saying is separate to relational theory. It's just that because the relational model is based so closely on first-order predicate logic, it's easier to see the connections.

I think what might be confusing is just terminology: the words "model" and "theory" can mean slightly different things in different contexts. From one point of view something could be regarded as a model, from another it could be regarded as a theory. Neither is wrong, it's just the context.

Paul. Received on Sun May 30 2004 - 12:35:30 CDT