Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"

On Jan 27, 3:48 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 7:46 pm, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 10:05 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
> > > > > 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
> > > > > methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
>
> > > > Now we have something, a description of a human pursuit. This makes as much
> > > > sense as #5 below.
>
> > > > > 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the
> > > > > method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
> > There you go. A combination of 4 & 5 seems like a definition that might
> > apply best to cdt.Sounds good. So, now, does Occam's razor apply to 4 or 5 at all? My
> understanding is that those who believe in Occam's razor, apply it to
> theories that align with definition 1.

Yes it is useful with examining phenomena. But it is just a tool, there is no remit to where it might be used.

> Is that your impression as
> well? I think we can completely dismiss this seemingly false argument
> related to relational theory, but I want to be sure.

Maybe I didn't emphasize my point - I see no relevancy to what Date has said to occams razor to the defintion of 'theory'. Occam's razor is only a heuristic anyhow, an indication of a path to follow given two possibilities - it may not lead one down the right path. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler" is much more applicable.

>
> > Look, its absolutely fine to take an MV view and
> > investigate it - others have discussed it on here without producing
> > mass offence, because they approach the subject theoretically and
> > scientifically because they will back up their analyses with rules and
> > principles, follow them through logically and mathematically, be
> > concise, address the disadvantages they generate, etc. T
> I'm attempting to be very precise on this point, including requesting
> the definitions of others so I do not assume anything I should not be
> assume.

That's fine, but forget occam's razor. Its a red herring.

> I'm going back to the arguments for relational theory and will
> address them logically. Although I have issues with relational theory,
> there is nothing in the mathematics of relational theory with which I
> disagree, so there are no mathematical argument for me to produce.
> Does that make sense from your perspective, or not?

No! I think it is perfectly feasible to address part of the mathematics - the redefinition of relations or cartesian product for instance, or the fact that relations are enumerated via a combination of intension /and/ extension, which is unseen in pure mathematics, or contradictions that might arise from CWA under missing information. One might be completely incorrect, but these things are worthy of discussion, and if nothing else if someone asks the question again, there are the arguments already examined. After all this is how nested relations became accepted, or set-based domains, etc.

> Is "database
> theory" entirely mathematics from your perspective? It doesn't seem
> like it would be if you take 4&5 as definitions for theory. We also
> need the part where we apply the mathematics and any other rules or
> priinciples to the subject matter. It is that aspect of database
> theory that interests me most.

Again no it is not just mathematics, its about the nature of information. 'Database' is stemmed from the word datum - "a given statement of fact". Hence theories that address it broach into philosophy (e.g. liebniz), linguistics, logic, all sorts of areas. Hand waving and anecdotal evidence of what worked on this project wot I did is not one of them.

>
> > hey have no need to fear an uproar, because they keep their arguments
> > free of business politics and crusades!You must not be referring to the start of relational database theory,
> I'm thinkin' (or you might want to ask some CODASYL folks some
> questions about that). Perhaps relational theorists at the start also
> appreciated the words of George Bernard Shaw that I had next to my
> computer for many years:
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Is that how you see yourself? Like the Harlequin from 'Repent Harlequin said the tick-tock man' by Harlan Ellison? Lordy.

But in the realms of science, this quote is nonsense. In science we 'stand on the shoulders of giants' - forget that and people are just insulted (And anyhow George Bernard Shaw seems to be missing the precluded middle, where /hopefully/ I am.) Perhaps the quote does apply to politics, but then that's the very area I'm asking you to leave behind.

>
> I realize that I'm an "end-user" of database theory, as well as a
> student. I am not an entirely satisfied user, and I do voice my
> concerns (rather than keeping them to myself). In my profession, when
> a user is dissatisfied, I listen carefully to their requirements and
> determine what is feasible to meet their requirements in line with all
> others (resources, for example). I don't know if those who consider
> themselves in the profession of "database theorists" (I think there are
> such, right?) have a similar approach to their users.

I've heard all that you say about users and interfaces. I've read what you have written. But the way you are addressing an issue that you perceive is really, really flawed imo.

• I might be
  > over-estimating the discipline, but I gotta think and I am hopeful that
  > at least some do. I have seen gains since I started watching, reading,
  > and asking questions in this area, so that is a good sign from my
  > perspective, although there have not been enough gains to rest on them.
  

Stop baiting! It serves no purpose whatsoever.

>
> > They might distinguish
> > implementations with underlying model clearly. But and most
> > importantly, they steer clear of hand way appeals to woefully
> > unreliable /anecdotal evidence/ (which is like committing discursive
> > suicide without a plethora of caveats attached to it).
>That is when I'm functioning as an end-user of database theory, even if
> treating myself as both end-user and attempting to tap into what
> database theory developers are thinking when they do not meet "my"
> requirements. I am both voicing my end-user concerns and trying to
> figure out how others address such concerns.

You are not an end-user of database theory. You are an end user of implementations. But again only a fool would say that RM is all that she wrote. You see an issue, fine, address it logically, scientifically and mathematically to form an improved theory. No politics, no business anecdotes, no dogmatic agendas, just investigate and then publish. I know this is bloody difficult, and hard work, but it has got to be done.

>
> > After all if anecdotal evidence was of any merit we'd all believe in
> > Ghosts, Telepathy, Martians, Elvis being alive,You were doing OK until this one. I'm from Kalamazoo, 'nuf said.
>
> > or that I can look at
> > greasy sodden tea leaves to see if England are ever going to win a
> > cricket match again.I understand. To my recollection, I have never used anecdotes as proof
> (and certainly do not think of them as proof, but also do not discount
> intuition as a valid starting point for a hypothesis). Anecdotes can
> provide reason enough to seek a better understanding of why an anecdote
> does not align with related theory, for example, or as
> counter-examples.

They can spark ideas of interest to investigate, but that is all. Hence the reason there was scientific work done on ESP. It just happened to prove it was poppycock.

>
> > > > Sounds the same as 4, generally speaking.
> > >OK, that was my impression too. So, one person might have 2VL in their
> > > theory and another might have 3VL, right? How would one judge whether
> > > one was better than another? I would think that would be by applying
> > > each system of rules along with some means of measuring which system
> > > produces better results in various areas. Judging database theories
> > > would be much like judging software products - what features does it
> > > provide, what quality requirements does it meet, etc. Does that make
> > > sense?
> > Not to me. Database theory is grounded in the nature of information in
> > a dynamic world, and how it can be communicated and manipulated, and
> > its integrity maintained.OK, so it is some subset of "theory" as it relates to "databases" -- is
> that what you are indicating? I can understand how you can get
> precision in the latter part of your statement, but not the start of
> it.
>
> > Logicians and Linguists have spent centuries
> > addressing these issues, scientifically and diligently.Yes, indeed. I'm familiar with the Chomsky hierarchy, for example.
> [warning, anecdote -- when my father, a linguist, had the opportunity
> to publically ask Chomsky a question, maybe 40 years ago, he asked one
> about "pragmatics." So, perhaps I'm just genetically inclined to such
> questions ;-) ]
>
> > We are far from
> > getting to the truth of what information is, and how it best be
> > handled, but we have progressedBy what measurement have we progressed? I do not doubt you, but I'm
> interested in how you have reached such a conclusion.
>
> > and it is through this sort of applied
> > epistimology that advances will continue to be made. Progress does not
> > occur through saying "my mate used this graph thing to organize his wii
> > game collection and it was leet. I don't understand it doesn't 0wnage
> > the world. It must be because all the man has have been lying to us all
> > these years."
> But wouldn't you think it could advance at least a little by collecting
> the requirements of its user base.

Yes I do. Absolutely. However, I think this is unrelated to the problems you are having in constructing good theory though.

> I have never before asked my
> end-users to come up with mathematical proofs for what they say they
> need to do their jobs well.
>
>
>
> > > > > 6. contemplation or speculation.
> > > > > 7. guess or conjecture.
> > > >"Ha! We'll get lots of wise-cracks on these two!Sometimes my statements align with 4 & 5, in which case they could be
> > > judged by what features are present and which are not. Sometimes I get
> > > responses or give statements that are more in the 6 or 7 category. But
> > > if someone guesses that that relational theory is better for xyz in the
> > > long term and I guess it is not, then a comparison of features (which
> > > we might do to judge database theory as mentioned above) is not
> > > sufficient because we can disagree on which approach is more
> > > feature-rich or meets the requirements best. We actually need to know
> > > which requirements we are aiming for and then perhaps collect emperical
> > > data, not just think "hey, it seems to me that relational theory should
> > > provide us with databases that are easier to maintain with quality data
> > > over the long term than other databases." But when I bring up
> > > emperical data, some indications are that this is outside the scope of
> > > database theory.Having a 'theory' is not enough.
> > One has to back it up, or develop it
> > with a bit of scientific rigour for it to become worth people's time
> Again, not something I say to my users, nor to myself-as-user when I am
> playing both user and "developer" but I am understanding that there are
> some who would like all of database theory to be within the confines of
> mathematics. That would be very tidy -- not necessary useful, but
> definitely tidy. Agreed?

No, not at all. I doubt anyone believes that. Flaws in your delivery and lack of scientific rigour can not be put down to blaming other people. Its too easy to say 'oh, they only care about mathematics'. Of course they don't, and nor did Codd. Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 14:49:01 CET