Re: Relational lattice completeness

Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> vc wrote:
> > Speaking of the OP question, is he trying to show that his query
> > language is as expressive/'complete' as RA/RC, more
> > expressive/'complete', or his question is about something completely
> > different ?
>
> It's not clear who you assume the Delphi is. Jan asked about the
> completeness first.

Which completeness did he ask about ?

>After the round of exchanges I once again think
> that speaking about completeness of axiom system is premature until we
> establish the axiom system in the first place

That seems like a reasonable suggestion.

>
> http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/research_fellows/leng/b_theories3_02.pdf

It would be prudent not to read the reference.

>
> For relational lattice we know the interpretation. Can we speak of the
> completeness of a theory by just knowing the set of interpretations?

Theory completeness in the sense of the fisrt Goedel theorem is a syntactic notion. There is no need to talk about interpretations.

>
> As for Jan's equality expression derivation rule, does the Spight
> criteria (which is an implication in meta language) fit there?

I would not know until you elaborate. Received on Fri Apr 07 2006 - 18:54:23 CEST