Re: On the usefulness of tables definitions in RM...

On 22 août, 11:27, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > On 21 août, 01:29, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> >> Cimode wrote:
> >> >> I then remind the class that the tabular appearance is merely a happy
> >> >> accident.
> >> > Thanks for this insight. I am curious as to what do you think is
> >> > gained by your students, in the perspective of understanding
> >> > relations, in going through such efforts.
>
> >> Nothing, I hope.  Or rather, I hope they are disuaded that the tabular
> >> representation has any special significance. At the very least I hope
> >> they don't leave saying things like "tables are two-dimensional".
>
> >> But perhaps you are asking if they discern a distinction between table
> >> valued variables and tables?  No, probably not.  I do actually say words
> >> that spell out the difference but I can't say I ever test their
> >> understanding of the difference.
> > You have guessed right.  Don't you believe that understanding that
> > difference is important to understand relation manipulation/
> > operation ?
>
> Sure.  And as I say, I do make the point explicitly.  (BTW, I train
> only working programmers and they have zero interest in anything that
> proclaims itself to be "theory". I don't talk about "relations",
> "propositions" or "predicates" in class.)  All I can say is that I want
> them to end up writing set-oriented code always, and they seem to mostly
> get it in the end.
I do admire the effort. I have found that conveying the unnatural set based thinking is quite a challenge with people priorly exposed to procedural mindset. Somehow, the two mindset seem opposite both in intent and efficiency to understand the relevance of relational algebra.
> Roy
Received on Sun Aug 22 2010 - 13:30:05 CEST