Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)

"Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandrod_at_mac.com> wrote in message news:3BBB41B8.7090202_at_mac.com...

> Perhaps you should ask the people at http://dbdebunk.com./ -- there you
can
> contact the actual gurus that work with relational algebra, namely Chris J
> Date, Hugh Darwen, Fabian Pascal, and McGoveran.

Thanks, I'll have a look later.

> That's because relational theory was defined by EF "Ted" Codd... and is
> restricted to database systems.

I seem to remember the rdbms guys redefined 'completeness', to something that has no bearing on mathematical compeletness (which I cant remember the definition of anymore). I mean, mechanical engineers use applied mathematics to underpin their theories, but they don't go an redefine fundamental concepts on a whim! So why do computer scientists do that???

> > When applying relational algebra to computing, is it a fair assumption
to
> > say that it is a value based system? Mathematics always seemed more like
an
> > identity based system to me.
>
> This part is too hight for me!

But I think its kind of important. I think you could re-implement relational algebra with identity based semantics. I think it would be a lot closer to set theory then. Set theory is what people use to 'implement' mathematics these days ;-)

Cheers

Daniel Received on Wed Oct 03 2001 - 19:36:37 CEST