Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies

On Feb 28, 2:22 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 7:59 am, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>While I identified that you are handicapped by a poor mathematical
> >>background whithout being aware of it, you are fighting the right
> >>fight in general computing terms thanks to the enlightnment that is
> >>brought by RM concepts.
>
> > Please let me make a small correction to the above if I may:
> > I am in fact excruciatingly aware of my limited mathematical
> > background.
>
> As I am. When exceptions have been made, here and there, I've also been
> pained to notice how we can break a theory and then can no longer depend
> on what it predicts. However, when we make a theory, the pre-eminent
> decisions are whether we are happy with it and whether we are willing to
> abide by it for some limited purpose. We must agree to let the math try
> and help us before all else but we must keep it in its place,
> subservient to our motives, otherwise we become slaves.

<<the pre-eminent decisions are whether we are happy with it and whether we are willing to abide by it for some limited purpose >> I see the wisdom in such words, but wisdom goes on both ways. One must keep in mind that RM is relatively young and too many areas were left open and unclear for discussion by Codd.

The consequences of Codd's enlightenned structuralism of set theory also constitutes its limit. In case of doubts about clarity, I believe that a mathematical fundamental bias should be preeminent over computing abstract structuralism.

Computing abstract structuralism perception and understanding is very context dependent while math is much more resistant to context and perception.

In other words, when points get unclear, only math shows the way around.

The opposite I believe is as dangerous as the aspect you have described...
A matter of perspective... Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 10:19:11 CET