Re: Example of expression bias?
Date: 20 Jun 2006 05:05:19 -0700
Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > The time PAC-MAN eater has striken again with his nothingless crab
> > mind...
> If it's "nothing-less", that there must be "something" there. Thank
I meant nothingness.
> > This is a database and data management theory NG...
> In theory at least. This *was* a question specifically about higher
> order functions.
> > I have heard this
> > kind of BS argumentation about LISP about a zillion times...
> And clearly, your response to it is still to fall back on your standard
> vocabulary and thought processes/reactions ("BS", yet again).
> >If you
> > believe that LISP or other BS functional buzz word, have a foundation
> > in *lambda calculus*
> It's not belief. It's a simple fact. Do keep up. (Oh, and there's that
> "BS" again...)
> > and could be useful, you have to specify in what
> > area computing it could be relevant: logical implementation? physical
> > implementation...
> Why ? Anyway, I find FPs to be useful for data type definition,
> operator definition, general purpose work, that kind of stuff. Y'know,
> *programming*. That activity you indulge in when you use programming
Usefulness does not determine soundness. It is not because FP or OO mechanisms can be helpful at implementation that they represent a sound fundation to build on...Implementations should be determined according to sound logical fundation. In data management RM is pure succesfully applied mathematics. Only indepth comprehension of RM concepts can allow to evaluate validity of a possible implementation model. FP or OO are not even models they are mechanisms...I do not see how a mechanism can be succeful in anything if it does not rely from an implementation model, which itself derives from RM... The rest is repetition...
> > Then you have to establish how *lambda calculus*
> > could be a better abstract foundation for implementation than some
> > other area of mathematics....
> I could fall back on the standard c.d.t. response of "educate
> yourself". But, I'll pause to note that the lambda calculus was the
> first formalism used to prove undecideability back in the 1930s. It
> allows reasoning about programs with the minimum of initial concepts,
> and is universally applicable, being Turing machine equivalent. Really,
> just *start* at wikipedia then *move on* from there.
If I have stated that FP is irrelevant it is because I have already discussed and wasted time with it...No sound logical model has been defined for *undecideability* computing (while at it while not evoque quantic computing!) and even if there was one it would not be relevant to data management. Only RM has been defined specifically in such direction.
The reason why you still advocate such nonsense is because you do not understand sufficiently the difference between SQL and RM. Understanding better RM can only help you make sense of what I am stating.
> > You did not do any of this and neither did Marshall...
> You didn't read the poster's question, obviously.
> > Somebody who truly believes that a programming that's an implementation
> > could define a computing abstract foundation such as RM is just simply
> > delluding himself...
Somebody who believes that programming which is an implementation could define a computing abstract foundation such as RM is simply delluding himself.
> Sorry, this is just garbled nonsense. Try again.
Received on Tue Jun 20 2006 - 14:05:19 CEST