Re: Impossible Database Design?

Bob has expressed some criticisms of my posts in this thread that I wanted to respond to.

First, I will take responsibility for what I write, but I disclaim any responsibility for the actions or thoughts of those who read what I write. If they read only part, for example, that is them, not me.

Second, Bob expressed a concern that I didn't sufficiently repudiate the continuum issue. Let me state clearly that a discrete computer cannot represent a continuum. It is simply impossible. (A finite approximation of a continuum is of course possible.) As such, any argument based on a requirement of representing a continuum is bogus, invalid, and utterly without merit. That is about as strong a language as I can muster.

Bob said that I had ceded the intellectual high ground to Joe. If I did so, that was a mistake. I explicitly take back any ceding that may have occured.

Bob also said that I implicitly accepted Joe's assertions about Zeno's Paradox. I didn't think I had, but on rereading what I wrote, I can now see how it could be interpreted that way. I have not paid much attention to Zeno's Paradox because it always struck me as the intellectual equivalent of that child's toy with a ball attached to a paddle via a rubber band. When Joe said he couldn't shake Zeno's paradox, I replied "Regardless, ...". That "regardless" was meant, NOT to say regardless of the force of Zeno's paradox (of which there is none) but rather, regardless of Joe's inability. I regret the ambiguity.

I express no opinion on the true nature of time: discrete vs. continuous. Whether time itself is discrete or continuous doesn't even matter in the context of how we represent time in the computer. We necessarily represent it discretely.

I have no opinion on Joe Celko or his works at this time, but I reserve the right to form an opinion at a later time.

Marshall Received on Mon May 22 2006 - 18:30:39 CEST