Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3

On 20 déc, 22:03, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote: [Snipped]

<<We all must die and of course I don't like the idea but in his case we all have an especial reason to be sorry he is dead.>> Yes. In focusing my work on building a reliable computing model in last years, I have stopped counting the number of problems I stumbled upon to design an adequate algebra-semantics-implementation mappings engine. I have found during the course of this work immense difficulties in finding any other written material, than material based on the endless assumptions about what he or D&D would or would not think about how a computing model should implement RL.

It somehow became obvious to me that the focus of his work in laying down a fundation was achieved only at the expense of completedness and closure. As far as I am concerned , the chance to see a TRDBMS in a lifetime is getting smaller and smaller which each day passing. As this thought became unbearable to me, I took the initiative to go back to other areas of math to clarify some aspects that are imperative to establish before we can even imagine a RL computing model: quantifiers
(to allow establishing a operated relations as relations but not as
tuples/columns) and what we could call a *relational* algorhythmics
(focusing on the economics and constraints to be taken in
consideration to allow faithful relation representation/operation).

Since then, I wish Codd would still be alive to help answer some questions that following algebrists seem to underestimate. Received on Sun Dec 21 2008 - 10:50:46 CET