Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"
From: Bernard Peek <bap_at_shrdlu.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:48:07 +0000
Message-ID: <HOrQizyHVivFFwXY_at_delta.shrdlu.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:48:07 +0000
Message-ID: <HOrQizyHVivFFwXY_at_delta.shrdlu.com>
In message <1169879616.314041.298460_at_p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> writes
>3 and 4 are best. 5 is close.
>
>2, 6, and 7 are the layman's use of the term, which basically means
>a wild-assed guess.
>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.
If you want to exclude the "wild-assed guess" then you pretty much have to exclude Occam's razor too, because that's all it is. Occam's razor has never offered proof of anything, it's a socially acceptable way of introducing an unsupportable hypothesis.
-- Bernard Peek back in search of cognoscentiReceived on Mon Jan 29 2007 - 17:48:07 CET