Re: Relational Completeness

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:fJN2d.209851$mD.194083_at_attbi_s02...
> I've programmed PDP-11 assembly for school, but never for
> work. I did a fair bit of Z80 as a kid. Later I did some x86
> assembly in some plugins for Adobe Premiere.

I must have started earlier.

I programmed a PDP-1 and a PDP-6 for on campus summer jobs, later a PDP-10 aka DECsystem-10, and a VAX for work. The first computer I bought, A DEC Rainbow, had a Z80 in it, as well as an 8086. I started out to learn its assembler, but my enthusiasm for that level of detail had waned. So Jumped on TURBO PASCAL. I never did much work on desktop machines for work. Too much competition from clever 14 year olds willing to work for free.

But, of course, I used desktop tools at customer sites whenever they were more useful and more availalble than tools on the VAX or Alpha.

The PDP-1 had a good online debugger, called DDT. For years, I was an expert at text editing and debugging. That kinda delayed learning how to do things right. But, still, when the situation calls for a hackish solution, and nobody's looking, I kinda like pulling a fast one.

>
> Anyway, do you have any thoughts on the original question?

I'm afraid that "relational completeness" is beyond my level of mathematical sophistication. If I run across anything, I'll jump back in to the thread. Proofs that a certain set of axioms, or of operations, are minimally necessary, are elegant, in my view. Received on Sat Sep 18 2004 - 08:08:01 CEST