Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation

On May 3, 12:05 pm, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178174344.866049.272810_at_h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 2 mai, 21:47, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> > > Cimode wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > Brian,
>
> > > > Don't you think you are overcomplicating things?
>
> > > I certainly do. RT isn't as complicated or subtle as this thread is
> > > making it out to be.
> > I was not thinking about *subtleness*. I am having trouble following
> > Brian's wordy line of thought. I am not sure he and I have do not
> > have the same perception of what logical and physical independence
> > is. I was also refering to terms I am not familiar with such as
> > *database state*. To me they are totally foreign to RM formal
> > theory.
>
> > Maybe you could clarify. Thanks.
> > Regards...
>
> > [Snipped]
>
> I think that "state" is a fundamental concept in computing. As such, Brian
> and others ought to be able to use it to communicate rather precisely,
> without needing to present a formal definition. If you know what a
> "database" is and you know what a "state" is, I think you know what a
> "database state" is.
>
> Having said that, I'll admit that I'm often lost by Brian's argument. He
> seems to be arguing that transaction atomicity is an undesirable feature of
> our data model. If I'm reading that right, I abandon the effort to
> understand the rest of what he's saying.

A little reminder in case you decide to engage the CELKO boy

http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1490837.htm
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1980778.htm
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/857309.htm
http://www.tdan.com/sms_issue33.htm