Re: Impossible Database Design?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:12:33 GMT
Message-ID: <lancg.11518$A26.275229_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Even more than that, contemporary scientific thought shows there are
> physical limits to the size of the measurements _we can record_
> (ultimately constrained by planck length). We hence at a base level can
> only record time discretely, nevermind representing it, so discussion
> of a continuum is pretty irrelevant. On top of this, zeno's paradox has
> trivial solutions associated with the corresponding infintessimal time
> it to cross infintessimally small distances, so I'm unclear why it
> would be of interest in db discussion.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:12:33 GMT
Message-ID: <lancg.11518$A26.275229_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>
> Even more than that, contemporary scientific thought shows there are
> physical limits to the size of the measurements _we can record_
> (ultimately constrained by planck length). We hence at a base level can
> only record time discretely, nevermind representing it, so discussion
> of a continuum is pretty irrelevant. On top of this, zeno's paradox has
> trivial solutions associated with the corresponding infintessimal time
> it to cross infintessimally small distances, so I'm unclear why it
> would be of interest in db discussion.
It is of no interest whatsoever -- that's the whole point. One has to ask himself what sort of database expert would base an argument regarding modern database theory on an ancient example of fallacious reasoning.
That he got every point about the example he introduced backward and wrong sends even stronger signals. Received on Mon May 22 2006 - 20:12:33 CEST