Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

Modern scholars of logic should be aware that whereas the ancient western philosophers and logicians were not aware of the limitations of the system of logic, their ancient eastern counterparts (cf: Indian logic) in fact were aware of its limitations.

And secondly, the following article might be of interest to those who have been thinking about the implications of the work of Godel, Turing and Chaitin in logic:

The article is a transcript of an address given by Chaitin: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/cmu.html

Best wishes,

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz

"Bill H" <wphaskett_at_THISISMUNGEDatt.net> wrote in message news:g7psc.36419$zw.14141_at_attbi_s01...
> Todd:
>
> Does this pass the "reasonableness" test? The thought that: ...there are
> questions that can't be answered so they're meaningless and, thus, ignored
> (so the system is still complete) doesn't say much for consistency (i.e.
> anything that shows inconsistency is ignored so we still have
consistency).
>
> With postulates like these, I'm depressed about getting A's in college
logic
> and statistics classes, as they were obviously worthless. :-)
>
> Bill
>
> "Todd B" <toddkennethbenson_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [snipped]
>
> > > Also, does it actually matter? Because for example suppose I'm right
and
> > > relational theory is complete, there are still questions like the
> > > transitive closure which can't be answered. That's because these
> > > questions can't even be written down in first order logic so they are
> > > meaningless within the system (so the system is still complete). But
> > > they are meaningful in a "real-world" sense, because we are thinking
in
> > > a larger system which includes second-order logic.
>
>
Received on Tue May 25 2004 - 12:42:33 CEST