Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3

On 19 déc, 19:37, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > [Snipped example]
> > <<As soon as they started
> > making premises, they lost me because it doesn't look like their
> > method is anything more than case analysis that have any chances to
> > be
> > scaled up to practical problems. >>
> > Precisely.  I would go further as to say that hoping that using solely
> > algebra would be sufficient to achieve such resultis nothing more than
> > the holy graal of RL.  As you mentionned in an earlier post, the
> > example of lack of quantifiersi is one major obstacle most current
> > DandD work seem to ignore without consequence or awareness of the
> > price to pay.
>
> > Regards.. .
>
> I think around 1972 Codd wrote a proof that the algebra was logically
> equivalent to FOPC, later others (I forget their names) corrected a few
> errors and proved the equivalence.  This is why I'm happy to try to show
> things with the algebra, even though it can be tedious trying to see the
> forest for the trees.

To my knowledge, Codd never mentionned that FOPC would be sufficient to clarify RL. Choosing to work *solely* on that angle is a matter of personal choice.

Regards... Received on Fri Dec 19 2008 - 20:48:49 CET