Re: 4 the FAQ: Are Commercial DBMS Truly Relational?

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:34:57 -0400
Message-ID: <iv39kc.ql.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>


Marshall Spight wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> news:irs8kc.9nv.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...

>>
>> Now before
>> Mr. Pascal "debunks" me by pointing out that a rational basis is required
>> to achieve practical purposes, I would ask, if human beings have been
>> using these non-relational systems with an acceptable level of error, and
>> modern civilization has not fallen, is there need for a feedback cycle in
>> which practice affects the selection of mathematical models to use in
>> future engineering?

>
> I think Mr. Pascal would probably take issue with the phrase
> "acceptable error." He's something of an absolutist.
>
> While I'm somewhat disenchanted with Pascal &co. lately,
> there is something to be said about a "no compromises" attitude.
> But this most relevant to language designers. One point they make
> that I really buy is that a more regular language would be
> easier to use and easier to optimize.
>
>
> Marshall

Laconic2 got me going on this in his thread on "Theory is Practical." It seems we should be able to be purist and have a "no compromises" attitude if we have matched the mathematical theory to the problem at hand. If there is a mismatch there, then the mathematicians will say, "You're doing it wrong!" and the practitioners will say, "but your model didn't work and our compromise did." If we matched the right math to the problem, we could know in those cases that the system would work if we adhered to the requirements of the theory.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me
Received on Sat Oct 09 2004 - 18:34:57 CEST

Original text of this message