Re: Hierarchical Model and its Relevance in the Relational Model

Clarification

4.
The HM is a fundamental part of the RM. (To be clear, "fundamental" means "founded on".) Removing the HM from the RM would remove much of the integrity, power, and speed from the RM. Which mathematicians do, frequently. And then invent tiny fragments of integrity, to patch up a few of the gaping holes, what they have lost. The patchwork never ends. I can determine, by virtue of the evidence, of the systems prescribed by these mathematicians, exactly what is missing; subtracted.

Addenda A (not Errata)

Of course, any theoretician who considers themselves in the category that I have described, and within the scope of the thread that I have given, should feel free to respond.

Addenda B (not Errata)

Let me tell you where I am coming from. Besides Ceylon. Besides Canada. Besides Australia.

> Nevertheless, I am willing to execute the thankless task

I love my profession.

It is easy for me to help others, either furthering their knowledge or implementing something. It is easy for me to correct mistakes in my professional and to protect it from damage. That is the spirit and intent with which I started this thread. I am hoping that you love your profession, at least half as much as I do.

That leads to ...

I love the Truth.

I hope I do not have to explain why, how, in any profession, and to humanity itself, falsity is damaging. A lot of unnecessary argument can be eliminated if we stick to the truth. There is no such thing as private definitions or private truths, exist exist only for people who are severely isolated from society, people who do not have an authority. In the professions, we have authorities, standards, laws. If we observed them, there would be no conflict within each profession.

Which leaves us with conflict between professions, as we have here. This skirmish is about mathematicians published falsity about my profession, causing damage to it (as well as to themselves, refer my comments re Norbert's thread). This does not happen when I deal with the banking industry or the car manufacturing industry: both sides are well aware of the sciences involved. It only happens with mathematicians who declare themselves to be the theorists in my industry, the database implementation profession.

There is a gaping chasm between what the mathematicians do (published secretly amongst themselves, unknown to practitioners), ie. what they think practitioners should do, and what practitioners are actually doing. No other industry that I know of suffers this problem. Such a problem, an absence of theory, or an incapability to translate that theory to practical terms, would normally kill the industry. Fortunately the vendors have their own scientists, and the high end of practitioners are theoretically founded, so the industry proceeds without any input from mathematicians. The last recognisable contribution was 1970 to 1978. That is not to say that the mathematicians have been idle, no, a mountain of books have been published for the plebs, and they are all garbage, irrelevant to the actual application of the sciences, to successful implementations.

So that is the nugget of the conflict.

Any conflict is resolved by truth. Objective truth.

The only reason that there is conflict, and that it has remained for so long (forty five years that I am intimately aware of), is that the mathematicians in the database industry engage is various behaviours that are not science, and they do not have an authority. There are 42 "relational algebras"; 56 notations; papers contradict each other; nothing is resolved (among themselves, before the plebs see it as published).

Therefore, I requested that any discussion that may be had, be limited to the scientific realm. That means you cannot deny reality; other sciences; the laws of physics; etc. That means that you uphold the truth, that truth is beyond the world of abstract mathematics; that truth is higher than the god of mathematics. Otherwise the conflict will remain for another forty five years.

I am hoping that you love the truth, at least half as much as I do.

Cheers
Derek Received on Fri Jan 30 2015 - 06:10:41 CET