Re: Very simple question to relational theorists.

Evgeniy Grigoriev wrote:

> Thank you Roy. I think almost the same.

> But I'm sure that name is not only psychological issue. Just one
> example (no RM in the one).

> I can write X+Y to sum two values. But in modern programm languages
> I can use very complex names to denote the values. These names are
> full of meaning, but they are not only psychology, because system
> translates them into set of operation to obtain the denoted values
> from memory.

Sounds physical to me.

> I think that the same process is possible for relations too. Just
> imagine - a system can analyzes complex names (I write about) and
> calculate the virtual relation from real relations according to the
> given complex names and some predefined rules. (Of course the system
> uses relational operation only in all the calculations.) In this
> case it's not necessary to define the calculation expression by
> hand. Only complex names have to be given which correspond to
> predefined rules. If I use other combination of name I'll get other
> result. So the rules are equal to definitions of many virtual
> relation. In this case complex names are full of meaning and also
> are used by system to obtain denoted relations.

> My question again :) Is this system relational?

Relational theory explicitly eschews physical concerns. Provided your physical machinations don't corrupt the logic you are free to do whatever you want.

But if the physical implementation intrudes even slightly on the logic (the allowable operations on the symbols in the formal system) then no, it would not be relational. In fact one struggles to think it could be anything else but junk.

-- 
Roy