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

On Jan 27, 1:14 pm, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 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/;

The false notion that Occam's razor (you can start with http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor if you need more explanation) has anything to do with relational theory and the notion that because a relation is simpler than a graph, for example, that is proof that a relational model for data is better than a graphic model for data. -- dawn

P.S. I apologize for ever using the term "rape," a term I have rarely ever used, but see that I did use it at a point when I was feeling exceedingly abused. Satisfied Keith? Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 21:53:50 CET