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

JOG wrote:

> On Jan 27, 3:48 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 

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

Ockham does apply to an extent. It tells us to prefer the simplest explanation with equal predictive value. Thus, if one can use a simple structure to express what one knows, Ockham's razor would cut away any additional complex structures. Pointers for example or repeating groups or religion for that matter.

>>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

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

That's a very tall order for Dawn. I predict she will just rename her illogic 'logical' and call it a day.

   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.
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

There is a huge gulf between unreasonable and stupid. The stupid lack the capacity to reason, which is a different thing entirely.

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

Snakeoil salesmen paint themselves as whatever they think will dupe the ignorant. Why do you entertain her nonsense?

> 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.

It applies to science in that no reasonable man would ever enter into science in the first place. It's not like science pays particularly well especially when one considers the difficulty of the task. A reasonable man would enter into a protected guild like law or accounting that can pay very well for even modest intellect.

>>I realize that I'm an "end-user" of database theory, as well as a
>>student.

Student? What horseshit!

[nonsense snipped]

> 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.

You will gain greater insight when you realise that she has no intention of addressing any issues. When you understand that she is a crank pushing a self-interested agenda, her approach becomes transparent.

[Dawn's horseshit snipped]

> Stop baiting! It serves no purpose whatsoever.

Sure it does. Dr. Phil would call it 'levelling'. She cannot possibly hope to reach the level of her betters so she has to try to diminish them somehow.

>>>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.

What horseshit!

> 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.

You have that wrong. It only has to be done if one wants to advance the state of human understanding. The self-aggrandizing ignorants have no such desire. The sooner you realize you are projecting your motives onto the cranks the sooner you will understand how counterproductive pretending to reason with their stupidity really is.

[cart-before-the-horse 'intuition' nonsense snipped]

>>>>>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 ;-) ]

Stupidity just like intelligence is heritable. I tend to agree with Dawn that her inclinations might have a genetic influence.

>>>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.

What a fucking idiot! Does she expect intelligent people not to notice such a loaded question? She assumes we don't have a clue about requirements when nothing could be further from the truth.

All of the general principles of data management related directly to requirements. That she willfully ignores all of those principles demonstrates she has no interest in requirements whatsoever.

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

Please, if you are going to pretend to engage her, call her on the bullshit.

>>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.

Neither has any other programmer. Writing the proof is the programmer's entire job.

[remaining nonsense snipped] Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 15:27:03 CET