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

dawn wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Occam's razor is in the same domain as 1, and doesn't
> > really apply, except perhaps as a design principle. I'm
> > not clear why you're focusing on an offhand comment of
> > FP's in an old dbazine article.
>
> My hypothesis is that this false notion, repeated by
> several in relational circles, has been rather key to
> relational theory going from being good as a mathematical
> model to being viewed as THE model by many. It seems there
> are some who still hold to it, which would be a reason it
> could be difficult to even consider discussing modeling
> with functions, for example (which could be taken as more
> complex, I suppose), or di-graphs, or other useful
> mathematical models for data.

What "false notion"? Please restate this "false notion" clearly and /succinctly/; I'm quite sure nobody wants to read paragraph after paragraph of your vague rambling. If you decide to use the term "Occam's razor" in your statement of this "false notion" then also provide a clear /succinct/ definition of the term as you understand it.

Keith -- Fraud 6

PS. If you want some of us to forgive the infamous "rape" comparison you spewed back when you had a breakdown, then why do you not publically apologize? Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 20:14:18 CET