Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:30:21 GMT
Message-ID: <NNo4g.18176$vy1.3295@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

JOG wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:

>> JOG wrote:
>>> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>> Marshall Spight wrote:
>>>>>> Neo wrote:

[..]

>>> Often because they work well on paper, and we are still traditionally
>>> tied to these constraints.
>> Bull - paper has nothing to do with it and its not tradition either.

>
> No, only bull, if you've missed my point. While you are still talking
> about phyogenetic trees, I was referring to the line about hierarchy
> being used in complex systems in general. [Of course phylogenetic
> tree's use hiearchy - they are based on a single common ancestor and
> translate to tree's naturally (ignoring horizontal gene transfer) ].

Your transfer is only worthy of consideration if you consider the gene the basic unit as Dawkins argues in the Selfish Gene. The jury is still out on this AFAIK!

> As
> such, my point was that there many things that are not hierarchies,
> such as family trees for example, which are still conventionally forced
> into tree structures. And part of the reason for this _is_ because the
> storage/presentation mechanism was traditionally subject to the
> constraints of paper.

The magnitude of the "part" is my point. Your original post made a strong claim to it being the dominant reason (even if by inadvertent omission of other possibles). Splitting hairs from here is not in the domain of CDT or CO but I would still hold for the most part the tree representation was firstly pleasing to the interested observer, and was recorded on paper for practical reasons and not because that is all paper was capable of.

>> It is in fact the state of the art after hundreds of years of (western)
>> scientific endeavour.  That does not presume it is perfect and certainly
>> does preclude it from advancing in the future but these traits do not
>> enable you to consign it to the rubbish bin.
>>
>>> Family trees for instance. Hardly hierarchical but construed as such
>>> due to the conventions of paper. For instance the Queen and Prince
>>> Phillip have common ancestors, although this is (conveniently)
>>> unobtainable information from the official royal 'hierarchy'.
>> This is not a phylogenic structure...it is/was a political statement first.

>
> correct. But then, I was not referring to phylogenic structures.

Structures nonetheless. Your inference remains weak...the paper goes to nothing in limiting the representation of intra generational inbreeding.

However if you talk about Oedipus then we do hit the wall hard (if that union were to lead any issue)!

Cheers, Frank. Received on Fri Apr 28 2006 - 08:30:21 CDT