Edgar Codd did not solve the atomic structure, at all
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <629ca9f3-c5c5-44ff-89b9-b688c7187ff0_at_googlegroups.com>
In this topic I will only write about the major mistakes made by Edgar Codd in his paper RM/T.
These major mistakes are related to Frege's semantic theory and they are related to the most important steps in projecting a database solution.
1.
Codd did not understand the basic terms in Frege's theory. For example, Codd
did not understand what is the concept, object, predicate and name. He also
did not understand the relationships between these four terms. Note that
these are the basic terms for the theory and practice of databases.
Even worse, Codd mentioned Bertrand Russell. (see section 4 in his RM/T
paper)
I have presented Frege's letter to Russell on this user group. (See my
thread under the following headline: " Is Russell's paradox in fact fraud?")
and I wrote the following:
„Frege replied to Russell on June 22, 1902. In Frege's letter to Russell, there is the following part of the text: „Incidentally, it seems to me that expression „a predicate is predicated of itself“ is not exact. A predicate is as a rule a first-level function, and this function requires an object as argument and cannot have itself as argument (subject). „
From this text, it is clear that B. Russell did not understand the
fundamental elements of Frege's theory - that is, predicates, objects and
concepts. Russell also did not understand the relationship between objects,
concepts, and predicates.
We can notice that these same things did not understand Codd and his
followers Date and Darwen. Even more, I have not noticed that they have ever
mentioned concepts and objects, and relationships between concepts,
predicates, and objects. “
2.
Note that Edgar Codd never mentioned Gottlob Frege. Since Frege is the
creator and author of semantics and predicate logic, then the following is
not clear: Which and whose theory Codd uses for his relational model and his
RM/T?
3.
The basis of the Codd's RM/T model is a surrogate key. But with the
surrogate key there are serious problems:
(i) The surrogate key is nonsense.
(ii) The surrogate key is in contravention of Codd's definition of key.
(iii) The surrogate key is nonsense in the case when there is an
internationally globally defined key.
For example, VIN vehicle standard, ISBN standard for books, bar codes, and thousands of other standards. These standards are global and can be checked using the internet. Nobody can
4.
If an employee from a computer center deletes or updates one or more
surrogate keys, then a chaos occurs in the existing database. Hackers are
much more dangerous, as they can update surrogates or delete them and no one
knows that keys have been changed.
5.
We can see that Codd did not solve the atomic structures, at all. We can see
that Codd has not solved atomic structures at all. Codd did not show how to
reach the atomic structure and did not explain what procedures are required
for the construction of atomic structure. Codd just desribed that atomic
structures have one attribute and a simple key. In my opinion, Codd was
bluffing that he solved the atomic structures.
The above text refers to the RM/T.
Regarding relational algebra and functional dependencies, I believe these Codd's papers have a lasting value.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Sat Jul 28 2018 - 23:35:16 CEST