Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:50:46 -0800 (PST)
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