Re: The RM, Newtonian mechanics, algrebra and incompleteness

mountain man wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:

>>mountain man wrote:
>>>Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, I think in this analogy Newton's model does correspond to a specific
>>>>database design. The possibility that the relational theory itself is
>>>>wrong corresponds to the possibility that algebra is wrong.
>>>
>>>Or incomplete, as has been formally demonstrated
>>>at least 30 years prior to the emergence of the RM.

[snip]

> ... There will
> necessarily exist example truths such as those defined above
> that exist independent of the relational model, and which are
> not addressable by the model.

Indeed. And you even go on looking for such truths. Chapeau.

> I believe that an example of this is:
>
> The intelligence (ie: data) that is encoded in (application level)
> SQL code captured in RDBMS stored procedures exists right
> alongside the data, and the constraints, etc. While the RM and
> theory address the data and constraints, etc, the intelligence
> (which is data) of the application level processes cannot be
> formally addressed by it, even though it consists of valid SQL
> statements expressing manipulations of perfectly valid data
> objects known to the model and theory.

Some of it may be capturable in the model by redefining the model - but this does not invalidate your statement. Here is another example:
http://www.essentialstrategies.com/documents/brules.pdf Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 15:50:00 CEST