Re: Example of expression bias?
Date: 20 Jun 2006 05:30:24 -0700
> I meant nothingness.
> 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
> 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.
> mechanism can be succeful in anything if it does not rely from an
> implementation model, which itself derives from RM... The rest is
Yes, you are very repetitious, both in your language and your ability to completely miss the point. Would you care to go back and read where this started from (that is: a question about where Erwin could find out about higher order functions) ?
> 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
> 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
> Should read...
> Somebody who believes that programming which is an implementation could
> define a computing abstract foundation such as RM is simply delluding
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