Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:41bec74e.1668187_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:12:06 +0100, "Ja Lar" <jalar_at_nomail.com> wrote:
>
>>All nothing but repetition of the same postulates, not a shred of
>>substance,
>>let alone evidence.
>
> The substance is in the old papers of the 70's and in the textbooks. I
> don't have any interest into discussing that completely passed topic
> with you.

But Alfredo -- I've been reading those now for over a year (in my spare time, instead of cleaning my house). I might not be the most brilliant mind around, but I can hold my own with logic and I will tell you that the "a implies b-ness" of the relational argument has significant gaps. There simply is not evidence, either from a set of agreed upon postulates (that do not include the conclusion) nor from emperical data that the relational model is superior to others. There are arguments, but simply nothing close to a proof. When I bring this up, people point me to more literature, which I then read. It simply is not there. There is some good spin and I can see where the writers are coming from, but it is much more like listening to a debate on whether humans evolved from apes (no scientific proof to my knowledge) than about whether there is any kind of evolution (for which there is scientific proof).

If you were to give it your best shot and point me to a proof that relational theory is better than all other data model theories (mathematics or scientifc proof) or that relational data model implementations are necessarily superior to the implementations of any other model (preferably including emperical evidence), then where would you point me? If I find the evidence, I'll jump on over, but I've looked and it just isn't there.

>>>They were inquestionable facts when I
>>>studied database theory in the university.
>>
>>As Dawn points out, once it was an inquestionable fact that the Earth was
>>flat. But that was a long time ago...
>
> This is false, but what you want is to reopen the debate about if the
> Earth is round or flat, and to question all the overwhelming evidences
> about its roundness.
>
> I don't want to play your stupid game.

You do know what the point is, however, right? If we question our theory and then re-prove it to ourselves, that makes its stronger, but if we question it and cannot come up with proof other than to suggest that it was proved a long time ago, then maybe it really wasn't. Cheers! --dawn

> Regards
>
Received on Tue Dec 14 2004 - 15:49:04 CET