Re: The RM, Newtonian mechanics, algrebra and incompleteness

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40bddafe$0$49150$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> 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

Looks like an interesting article. Many thanks for the reference.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 05:20:03 CEST