Re: Impossible Database Design?

From: Jan Hidders <hidders_at_gmail.com>
Date: 07 Oct 2013 05:05:08 GMT
Message-ID: <1860773012402814439.402457hidders-gmail.com_at_news.xs4all.nl>


David BL <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2013 11:37:06 AM UTC+8, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 May 2006 07:41:32 UTC+10, Nikolai Onken wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I was prompted to read that "Impossible Database Design?" thread from 7
> years ago, and found something Bob Badour said which was unchallenged at
> the time. Better late than never I guess...
>

>> With all due respect, inifinite is about capacity and the impossibility
>> of representing each of an infinite set of values in a finite space.

>
> For this statement to be correct it must be assumed the (non)existential
> quantification over finite spaces is outside the universal quantification
> over the values of the infinite set.
>
> I believe in the context of the somewhat superficial discussion (about
> finite versus infinite), the statement was intended to suggest that
> infinite data types are not useful to computer science. If so I'd call
> that a gross misrepresentation!

Me too, but did it really? I assume by infinite type we mean here a type with infinitely many instances. While clearly representable in a database, it makes the life of the DBMS easier if the size of the representation is more predictable. But if the point was that therefore all types should be finite, that would be taking it too far.

-- 
Jan Hidders
Received on Mon Oct 07 2013 - 07:05:08 CEST

Original text of this message