Re: Example of expression bias?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:45:08 GMT
Message-ID: <o7Zlg.103$pu3.1727_at_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 - 22:45:08 CEST