Re: A good book
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:30:43 GMT
Message-ID: <7VDrg.129103$iF6.71753_at_pd7tw2no>
>
> Unfortunately, that says nothing about database systems, unless you
> assume the connection between relational calculus and first-order
> predicate calculus. Just to be sure, I consulted pp. 192-220 of Robert
> Stoll's book Set Theory and Logic, which is a fairly sketchy account of
> first order predicate calculus, but has the advantage that it happened
> to be sitting on the bookshelf next to me. Of course I don't come
> across the word "database" once. I also don't find anything that
> appears immediately relevant to organizing systems of information
> storage and retrieval. In fact, every example I see in the book
> pertains to infinite relations, making it seem doubtful that the author
> was all that interested in databases at all.
>
>
> I will, actually, read Codd's paper. I'm beginning to wonder, though,
> if you are intentionally missing the point of what I'm asking; and if
> so, if there's a point you're trying to make by so doing. As far as I
> can tell, this shouldn't be a really difficult request.
>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:30:43 GMT
Message-ID: <7VDrg.129103$iF6.71753_at_pd7tw2no>
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. I also don't find anything that
> appears immediately relevant to organizing systems of information
> storage and retrieval. 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.
>
>> 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.
>
Oh, another book I like (I should warn you that books I like might be suspect, given my history of being fired for my opinions) is 'Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy', which is the earliest relational theory book I've read - it was written around 1917 and is still in print! I think it helps one get a feeling for what relations are - one way I think so is that it tries to answer the question 'what is a number?', a question I remember asking in grade school and which various teachers blew me off for asking.
p Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 03:30:43 CEST