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

In message <Bt%vc.5720$3x.5118_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, Eric Kaun <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> writes
>"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:DRon$bDW46vAFwij_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...
>> The whole point of axioms is that YOU DON'T WANT THEM! The aim of
>> logicians, mathematicians, and scientists is always to simplify things.
>> If you can derive an axiom from other axioms, it ceases to be an axiom
>> and becomes a theorem, and makes your fundamental theory simpler.
>>
>> To define "axiom == tuple" is, I think, a major mistake. I can't explain
>> why, it just feels COMPLETELY wrong.
>
>Fine - so do you propose a data theory that requires no axioms?

No. I'm just saying that you want the absolute minimum you can get away with. And the closer that tends to the (impossible) zero, the better :-) Which is why your data can't be an axiom ...
>
>
>I don't equate tuples with axioms, at least not as far as a theory like
>relational goes. I'm out of my depth in terms of the logical lexicon, but
>I'd say predicates correspond better, and if you have an unbounded predicate
>set, then yes, you've got crap.
>

Exactly. That's why I said it feels wrong ...

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999