Re: deductive databases
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 10:53:06 +0200
Message-ID: <42870df1$0$64598$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> In my case practice based alternatives were engineered
> for many years before I became aware that generalised and
> theoretical treatments of the problem were being considered.
>
> So its not that I went looking for alternatives, rather that in
> the early days I was not aware of any recursion theory.
>
> IMO there are at least 2 roads
> to database systems theory:
> the road of theory and
> the road of practice.
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 10:53:06 +0200
Message-ID: <42870df1$0$64598$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
mountain man wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>mountain man wrote: >>[snip "recursion useful to solve part explosion problems"] >> >>>In fact there are literally hundreds of alternative work- >>>arounds to this type of problem without involving >>>any form of esoteric generalised recursion theory. >> >><delurk> >> >>Just curious: >>What is esoteric about it? >>Or: What makes you look for alternatives? >>>... >>>If you relied upon theory you'd have a problem. >>>Fortunately there are viable practice-based >>>alternatives in SQL.
>
> In my case practice based alternatives were engineered
> for many years before I became aware that generalised and
> theoretical treatments of the problem were being considered.
>
> So its not that I went looking for alternatives, rather that in
> the early days I was not aware of any recursion theory.
>
> IMO there are at least 2 roads
> to database systems theory:
> the road of theory and
> the road of practice.
The users of roman numbers could do
very well without 0 - at least that's
what their generations thought.
I suspect that in the early days of the change
to arab numbers they looked on 0 as being of value,
albeit theoretical.
Programming languages did put recursion
on their practical road back in the 1960's.
Received on Sun May 15 2005 - 10:53:06 CEST