Re: what data models cant do

From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:55:58 +0100
Message-ID: <428a5a5d$0$572$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>

Kenneth Downs wrote:
> As the novices mature, they run into troubles and seek a way out,
> which leads them by one route or another to discover normalization.
>
> Thus questions the student: Master, I thought tables were good, and
> yet my table is clumsy and difficult.
>
> Thus replies the master: Ah, my grasshopper, if one table is good,
> more tables are better. Seek thou to have a place for everything and
> everything in its place.
>
> ...and the student was enlightened.

OK, but their intuition was wrong, it's their logical thought process enlightening them.

>> It just goes to show that intuition isn't always right (cf. quantum
>>  mechanics, relativity, etc.).

>
> Some intuition is learned.

Isn't this a contradication in terms? Intuition is, by definition, that which is not learnt. Maybe I'm just pointlessly arguing semantics though.

> I find both quantum and relativity to be
> very intuitive.

Really? I find them both mind-bogglingly counter-intuitive.

Paul. Received on Tue May 17 2005 - 15:55:58 CDT