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

On Jan 27, 3:11 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 12:53 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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. --

> If one is going to deny Occam's Razor, one is implicitly asserting
> that, given two models of equal value, either:

I suspect you are not catching my point on this. My point is that Occam's Razor is relevant to theories which seek to explain, but not to those which are effectively "how to" rules that we create based on a set of requirements. I see "database theory" as the latter.

> 1) We should not judge the two models on the basis of their relative
> complexity; complexity is irrelevant.

I'm all for simplicity, but do not understand Occam's razor to be about all sorts of simplicity. He is not saying that if you are to prepare a birthday cake, the rule of thumb is to prepare the simplest one, for example. So, if "database theory" is about observing something and then recording a mathematical model for it, then Occam's razor could apply. In my opinion, it isn't, so it doesn't. I am still not sure if that is the agreed upon opinion, so that most here understand that Occam's razor is irrelevant to database theory. If there are some who think that def 1 from the OP really does apply to database theory, or think that Occam's razor extends to more areas, I'm very interested in understanding that perspective.

> 2) We should prefer the more complex model; complexity is good.
>
> I question [from later post] whether either of these positions has any merit.

Did I clarify why I think that Occam's razor does not apply?

We can still talk about simplicity as a heuristic, and from my perspective it is overall simplicity that is desired, not the simplest code, the simplest model, etc, but the simplest overall solution that meets the requirements for the software.

Make sense or not? Thanks. --dawn Received on Mon Jan 29 2007 - 17:08:36 CET