Re: Example of expression bias?
Date: 20 Jun 2006 05:30:24 -0700
Message-ID: <1150806624.471176.204390_at_g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Cimode wrote:
> I meant nothingness.
>
Then be more careful with your method of expression. But your method of expression is quite obviously the least of your problems ...
> Usefulness does not determine soundness.
And quite obviously, you haven't bothered to read anything about the lambda calculus; it pre-dates electronic computers and programming as it is currently known. It is a formalism for describing and discussing computable functions. It is provable (and was, as part of the Church-Turing Thesis - look it up) that any computable function can be described in terms of the lambda calculus. If you still need a proof of soundness, disengage your bile ducts and start doing some reading.
> 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.
And as I've told you on a few occasions now, there is no sounder basis
than the lambda calculus for describing and reasoning about computable
functions.
> applied mathematics. Only indepth comprehension of RM concepts can
> allow to evaluate validity of a possible implementation model.
You have gone off the deep end now. Sadly, you're not even in the
correct swimming pool.
> 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...
>
> If I have stated that FP is irrelevant it is because I have already
> discussed and wasted time with it...
It's only irrelevant and a waste of time because you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick and are shaking it with vigour.
> 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.
>
What on *earth* has SQL got to do with this ? You have now wandered off into total irrelevance.
> Should read...
> Somebody who believes that programming which is an implementation could
> define a computing abstract foundation such as RM is simply delluding
> himself.
>
If this means what I think it means (and it's a stretch), then it would be both correct and irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Received on Tue Jun 20 2006 - 14:30:24 CEST