Re: theory and practice: ying and yang
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:00:18 GMT
Message-ID: <6q0le.1478481$Xk.1390121_at_pd7tw3no>
>
>
> Date can't "admit" anything for anyone else. He may "suspect" or
> "theorize" that RM theory is not undrestood by others. It may seem a
> trivial distinction in language, but the connotation is not trivial.
>
> Couple of questions (I take no stand on the answers):
> Is understanding theory important if the practice result
> implementation) is correct? If the results are correct, does this not
> imply that the theory is understood?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:00:18 GMT
Message-ID: <6q0le.1478481$Xk.1390121_at_pd7tw3no>
Alan wrote:
>
> mountain man wrote:
>
>>"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>3) Date openly admits that current (RM) theory is not understood >> >> by database professionals. >>
>
>
> Date can't "admit" anything for anyone else. He may "suspect" or
> "theorize" that RM theory is not undrestood by others. It may seem a
> trivial distinction in language, but the connotation is not trivial.
>
> Couple of questions (I take no stand on the answers):
> Is understanding theory important if the practice result
> implementation) is correct? If the results are correct, does this not
> imply that the theory is understood?
sure, not checking results against theory saves a lot of time. somebody once told me a dbms should crash rather than get a wrong result but he was in the minority. most times the second wrong answer tends to reinforce the validity of the first one.
pc Received on Wed May 25 2005 - 17:00:18 CEST