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

On Feb 6, 1:29 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:04 pm, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 5:56 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 6:55 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > I just don't see the point of this thread yet Dawn. Obviously there is
> > > > an agenda there, so If we can clarify what it is, perhaps it can be
> > > > discussed? Why not put those cards on the table - are you intending to
> > > > say:
>
> > > > 1) MV representations are preferable to RM because MV appeals to
> > > > occams razor.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > > 2) RM appeals to occam's razor, indicating that in your opinion as a
> > > > set based MV-crusader, occam's razor is wrong in this case
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > > 3) Others who have said RM as "a theory as a whole" (I have never seen
> > > > such a quote but there you go) appeals to occam's razor are
> > > > misapplying it.
>
> > > Yes. I have read at least two articles from Date and I think also
> > > something from Pascal that appeal to Occam's Razor.
>
> > Quotes, references or links perhaps? Without them everything you cite
> > as an issue comes across as just bluster and hand-waving. Perhaps you
> > aren't worried about this. I suspect you are though, so surely you can
> > see why that would frustrate?
>
> OK, let me see if I can redeem this for you. I asked about the
> definition of theory in part because I did not understand how people
> could apply Occam's Razor to database theory. It seems that most who
> responded understand it as I do, so that definitions 3-5 below are
> relevent, but 1 is not
> 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles
> of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of
> relativity.
> 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging
> to one subject: number theory.
> 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
> methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
> 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the
> method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
>
> My understanding of Occam's Razor has been that it is not the same as
> KISS, but is about comparing different "theories" of observed (or
> sensed) phenomena. So, when I see it used in the article I mentioned
> earlier at
>
> http://www.dbazine.com/ofinterest/oi-articles/pascal12
>
> or elsewhere, such as this old thread where BB employs ithttp://dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=935390&page=2&pp=15
>
> I do not understand this argument. Unless one holds to def 1 as the
> meaning of "theory" in "database theory" we are not talking about
> making observations about the real world and then trying to explain
> them with mathematical models. We are working to create something.
>
> I understand if we are trying to "Keep It Simple" but might have a
> different "it" than someone else might have. As we know, simple can
> be hard. We do not give our users the simplest code that will permit
> them to get the job done typically because that does not imply that we
> have made it simple for them to get the job done. We often have more
> complex algorithms just to make it simpler.
>
> So, it makes sense to me for us to appeal to KISS throughout the
> software development process, but not to Occam's Razor. The reason
> for this relates to my understanding of theory as in "database theory"
> and my understanding of Occam's Razor. It sounds like you are with me
> on the former, but not the latter. Is that accurate? Thanks. --dawn

Ok, the one reference you give is:

"Is "messy natural, relational data" a technical term? Data is not "naturally" relational or hierarchic/multivalue. Any data can be represented either way, and Occam's Razor says the simplest one should be preferred."

I see nothing wrong here. I understand fully that Pascal means: * We want to store, manipulate and maintain the integrity of data, but there is no 'natural' way of doing this. * But in attempting to do so we should to create a mechanism that does so 'as simply as possible, but not one bit simpler so that one would lose any expressive power'.

As long as we understand the point what difference does the original use of Occam's razor make? And it makes no sense to me that you would disagree with Pascal's statement here, given your normal stance on 'bang for buck'. Received on Tue Feb 06 2007 - 11:49:04 CET