Re: theory and practice: ying and yang

From: Alexandr Savinov <savinov_at_host.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:17:46 +0200
Message-ID: <42a406bb$1@news.fhg.de>

Tony Andrews schrieb:
> Alexandr Savinov wrote:
>
>

>>If you ask about some ready solution then it is does not exist. But when
>>I was writing about such a future theory I meant that it is possible to
>>make a list of principles such a theory should satisfy. For example, the
>>model needs to be able to describe itself. Equivalent statements: a set
>>has to include intself as a member; a space has to be one of its points,
>>a dimenstion has to be considered a normal value or point; infinity has
>>to be reachable etc.

>
>
> It seems to me you are on an ambitious project to overthrow the whole
> of mathematics as we know it. I guess it's a bit soon to be trying to
> replace the Relational Model with something based on your
> as-yet-undefined theory.
> So we'll carry on as we are for now, shall we? ;-)

ok :-)

What I was writing about has nothing to do with data models. (As usual, we successfully forgot what we have started from :-)

With data modeling the situation is much simpler (almost obvious) so *if* you need it you can get it. But frankly speaking I agree with you that there is no necessity to replace RM if people are satisfied with it.

>>infinity has to be reachable

>
>
> What, so you mean there IS some number that is the biggest number, to
> which 1 cannot be added? Wow!

You still think in terms of numbers and arithmetic operations like several thousands years ago. Numbers is one possible interpretation of what we see (very simple, natural and productive but somewhat limited) but things we see might have other interpretations. In particular, it is not possible to reasonably explain many phenomena including but not limited to infinity.

-- 
alex
http://conceptoriented.com

Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 03:17:46 CDT