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

On Jan 29, 8:08 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Well, um, I'm going to have to say "not." It seems that first you go to great pains to discuss a precise and narrow version of Occam's, then decide it doesn't apply to the question at hand, but then say "overall simplicity is desired" which is exactly what a broad version of Occam's would say. So the whole message seems to me to be a no-op.

Marshall Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 10:41:14 CET