Re: Example of expression bias?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:45:08 GMT
Message-ID: <o7Zlg.103$pu3.1727@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

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 ...
>

>>Usefulness does not determine soundness.

Ironically, the crank apparently concluded I was a fraud for noting that the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument depends on the truth of the premises. Perhaps, he should expand his wikipeducation to include propositional logic, modus ponens and modus tollens.

> 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.

And that too. (One wonders whether he realises that Church-Turing has nothing to do with cathedrals and bus trips.)

>>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.
>
>

>>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.
>
>

>>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) ?

Ironically, in the sense that FP and RM are both formalisms, one could argue they are both models. I suspect Church would have called his a functional model as opposed to Codd's logical model.

Regardless, they are both formalisms and both direct applications of mathematics as near as I can tell.

>>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.

LOL

>>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.

I would recommend Sipser instead of the Wikipedia though.

>>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.

One wonders when he ever wandered out of it in the first place.

>>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 - 15:45:08 CDT