Re: A different definition of MINUS, part 4

From: paul c <>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:40:38 -0800
Message-ID: <L4N5l.49378$496.38441_at_newsfe13.iad>

Cimode wrote:
> On 28 déc, 14:56, paul c <> wrote:
> [Snipped]
> <<I'm not sure that this is anything really different from saying that
> we want logical consistency to be demonstrable in a dbms
> implementation>>
> It can not be done without estalishing valid quantifiers for algebric
> expression or for non algebric expression of RL equations to be
> resolved. This is one of the aspects I have been trying to underline
> in previous posts and that is a prerequisite to design a computing
> model that may allow closure for implementation. In the case of
> algebric expressions of RL, distance is the most obvious quantifier
> one can use. But D&D as well as Mc Goveran seem to ignore it.
> Regards and Merry Christmas to you.

Thanks, mutual. One thing I don't understand about your quantifier comment; if an algebra has a projection operator, don't we have quantification in the algebra? (ie., "Exists"?) Received on Sun Dec 28 2008 - 16:40:38 CET

Original text of this message