Re: computational model of transactions

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:53:48 GMT
Message-ID: <goQBg.331006$Mn5.38111@pd7tw3no>

Brian Selzer wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message

>...

> You're right about "sum" being disjunctive. I don't know what I was
> thinking. But I don't get what you're trying to say about a minimal logic.
> Should set theory be stripped away? I guess you could do that if you think
> of a database as one big statement. Even if you did that, I still don't
> understand how you can avoid order unless the database is static. If the
> database can change, then the operation that changes it creates a new
> database. I suppose you could ignore the old database but that doesn't mean
> that it doesn't exist.

As others here state, set theory is already pretty minimal but complete enough at the same time, so what would be left? Sets have these operators that are almost direct parallels to inferences in predicate logic which makes a pretty powerful and flexible combination - I'm not smart enough to think of something better, but I suspect the nuances have not yet been fully explored, eg. logical equivalence and rva's, not to mention type theory which I'm mostly ignorant about.

The vocabulary you use is full of words that suggest time, eg., order, static, change, new. The other problem I see is that you consider the database part of your universe. I think to make any progress you must separate the system from the environment - in my opinion, most, maybe all systems don't go far enough in this regard, which is why they encumber the user with their own 'environments' and users continue to think in ways that are too dependent on implementations. However, following anything I say is probably not good for your career.

p Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 18:53:48 CDT