Re: Do Data Models Need to built on a Mathematical Concept?
Date: 7 May 2003 12:18:30 -0700
Message-ID: <4b45d3ad.0305071118.33c1aba4_at_posting.google.com>
> > You don't see the parallel between a db representing things
> > and a brain representing things?
>
> What you propose (as it seems to me, anyway) is to reveal the
> incomprehensible mess of neurons and axons directly to us.
> This is supposed to help us how?
Yes, behind what looks like an "incomprehensible mess of neurons and axons" to you, looks to me to be the implemenation of a more flexible data representation system.
> If you find that the design of the brain provides you with ideas for how you
> would like to *implement* a DBMS, fine, but using this implementation as
> the data model can only lead to a very complex system with little or no
> benefits.
You haven't yet realized that the reason the brain is more flexible is because it uses a simpler, not a more complex, data model!
> Consciousness is an abstraction implemented on the hardware of the brain,
Ok.
> you want to bypass the abstraction and go straight to implementation,
No, I observe the flexible capabilites of the brain to represent
things,
and find that the current relational data model does not provide such
level of flexibility, so I search for a better or improved relational
data model.
Received on Wed May 07 2003 - 21:18:30 CEST