Re: Example of expression bias?
Date: 20 Jun 2006 06:06:20 -0700
Sorry, TYPO, you have been pouding so hard your high order function that I made a nonsense.
So what is your point? I will not get back to higher order functions. relations are sufficient to describe more simply the concepts refered to as higher order functions...
So what is your point? I will not get back to higher order functions. relations are sufficient to describe more simply the concepts refered to as ensemblist combinatory functions...
> Tony D wrote:
> > 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 ...
> I may do sometimes a typo but so are you...I have some excuse to speak
> a foreign language.
> > > 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.
> You defined relevance of FP by its usefulness. I simply responded that
> soundness is not determined by usefulness... I do not have time to do
> reading on FP. The little I have been exposed to was sufficient to
> consider it irrelevant to data management issue. All the nonsense you
> produce about data management concepts do not encourage me any more...
> > > 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.
> Good. All I wrote to describe what is a sound implementation model was
> totally useless.
> The predicate is
> Mathematical expression 1(is implemented as) Logical Model for data
> management1 (is implemented as) Implementation Computational
> Model1...For RM, it comes to
> Mathematical Relations(is implemented as) RM (is implemented as) TRM?
> (Last one not confirmed)...
> What is the occurence of predicate you state to give me any interest in
> > > 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.
> > You have gone off the deep end now. Sadly, you're not even in the
> > correct swimming pool.
> Huh? What the hell are you talking about...?
> > > 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...
> > >
> > 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) ?
> So what is your point? I will not get back to higher order functions.
> relations are sufficient to describe more simply the concepts refered
> to as 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.
> I am not shaking anything except your delluded brain...To encourage get
> significant education about RM which has been proven sufficient to
> abord the problem of formal representation of information in mechanized
> > > 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 mention of undecideability was with regard to one of the
> > fundamental issues of computability theory. Maybe if you'd bothered
> > reading rather jumping off the deep end you would have known that.
> undecideability relies on a concept that is totally off scope for data
> management issues...
> Don't you get it?
> > > 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.
> As a lot of people, you probably perceive RM through misinformed SQL
> audiences who have limited the relevance of RM theory.
> > > 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.
> It is perfectly (fill the predicate proposition and you will understand
> hopefully the chain of reasoning)
Received on Tue Jun 20 2006 - 15:06:20 CEST