Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:02:34 GMT
Message-ID: <KlHvh.6932$1x.121081_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>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
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:02:34 GMT
Message-ID: <KlHvh.6932$1x.121081_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> 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.
Is "op" the new lingo for "brain" ? Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 14:02:34 CET