Re: A good book

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:33:39 GMT
Message-ID: <7QErg.7717$pu3.171908@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Chris Smith wrote:

> Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>If you want a concise statement of the theoretical understanding, I gave 
>>it above. I repeat it here:
>>
>>Relational calculus = 1st order predicate calculus

>
>
> Unfortunately, that says nothing about database systems, unless you
> assume the connection between relational calculus and first-order
> predicate calculus. Just to be sure, I consulted pp. 192-220 of Robert
> Stoll's book Set Theory and Logic, which is a fairly sketchy account of
> first order predicate calculus, but has the advantage that it happened
> to be sitting on the bookshelf next to me. Of course I don't come
> across the word "database" once.

And your point would be?

   I also don't find anything that
> appears immediately relevant to organizing systems of information
> storage and retrieval.

That's because you are ignorant of the source material and have failed to read it even after it was pointed out to you and in spite of the fact that it is freely available online.

Codd 1970 google and you will find a couple copies of it online.

   In fact, every example I see in the book
> pertains to infinite relations, making it seem doubtful that the author
> was all that interested in databases at all.

And your point would be?

>>If you want further elaboration of the theoretical foundation, I suggest 
>>you start with Codd's 1970 paper.

>
> I will, actually, read Codd's paper. I'm beginning to wonder, though,
> if you are intentionally missing the point of what I'm asking; and if
> so, if there's a point you're trying to make by so doing. As far as I
> can tell, this shouldn't be a really difficult request.

It's not a difficult request. You are just too ignorant and too arrogant to quietly accept the correct answer. Received on Fri Jul 07 2006 - 21:33:39 CDT