Re: TRM and sorts
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:08:49 -0700
On Sep 8, 2:22 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Quite frankly I do not think order is a major drawback that could make
> > TRM deficient . From the experience I had in the last years, the main
> > drawback I have found is that it requires more mathematical tools to
> > support some undefined areas of TRM where basic computing operations
> > (permutations and combinations) are not sufficient anymore to
> > implement relational algebra concepts. For instance, at the moment I
> > am considering using vectorial mahematical tools to support the
> > implementation of run time domains.
> > ...
> just my attitude, but I think lack of ordering or grouping support is
> right up there with lack of transitive closure logic as a most
> unfortunate omission. maybe that goes back to the times when I couldn't
> understand why either the biggest number or the smallest number wasn't
> printed first on the 1403 fan-fold pages, preferably the largest
> absolute number first AFAIWC. my attitude is probably completely
> psychological and maybe pathological too as far as some are concerned.
> can't give conventional, aka current, justification for that, sorry!
I kind of understand (and sympathize) to what you are refering to. I believe that neither transitive closure nor unordered set nature could be sufficiently clarified through a computing model definition (namely TRM) without a anterior more explicit definition of unique identifiers within RM (meaning with abstract mathematical tools other than algebra). As long as such bricks are still missing at conceptual level of RM, I hardly see any opportunity to imagine a computing model that could help into solving such problem. I also hardly see any opportunity of formulating a viable solution only through experimentation of TRM. In other words, problem of transitive closure must be solved in RM first before we may be able to experiment it in some computing model such as TRM.
Sincerely hoping that will make sense.
I am afraid it would be simplyistic on my part to attempt definition on this NG of the concepts Received on Mon Sep 10 2007 - 11:08:49 CEST