Re: On the usefulness of tables definitions in RM...
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:27:22 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <i4qqhp$rra$1_at_speranza.aioe.org>
Cimode wrote:
> On 21 août, 01:29, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
>> Cimode wrote:
>> >> I then remind the class that the tabular appearance is merely a happy
>> >> accident.
>> > Thanks for this insight. I am curious as to what do you think is
>> > gained by your students, in the perspective of understanding
>> > relations, in going through such efforts.
>>
>> Nothing, I hope. Or rather, I hope they are disuaded that the tabular
>> representation has any special significance. At the very least I hope
>> they don't leave saying things like "tables are two-dimensional".
>>
>> But perhaps you are asking if they discern a distinction between table
>> valued variables and tables? No, probably not. I do actually say words
>> that spell out the difference but I can't say I ever test their
>> understanding of the difference.
> You have guessed right. Don't you believe that understanding that > difference is important to understand relation manipulation/ > operation ?
Sure. And as I say, I do make the point explicitly. (BTW, I train only working programmers and they have zero interest in anything that proclaims itself to be "theory". I don't talk about "relations", "propositions" or "predicates" in class.) All I can say is that I want them to end up writing set-oriented code always, and they seem to mostly get it in the end.
-- RoyReceived on Sun Aug 22 2010 - 11:27:22 CEST