Arthur Fuller
artful at rogers.com
Fri Jun 4 20:22:11 CDT 2004
>> Everyone misses the point that fundamentally, relational theory has nothing to do with computers per say. (sic) I don't want to break your mold, but I most emphatically DO NOT agree with your casigation. IMO relational theory has NOTHING to do with actual implementations or relational databases or any such physical crap. It has ONLY to do with logic. So please don't be so casual with that "Everyone" phrase. Personally, I find it hurtful. I'm a philosophy major by discipline, and databases are one instance of a set of rules. Please don't castigate us all because our intellectual skin colour diffes from yours. Thank you, Arthur -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:41 AM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: RE: [AccessD] OT: The Great Primary Debate I've kept my mouth shut too even though I don't agree with all the things that have been stated<g>. Everyone misses the point that fundamentally, relational theory has nothing to do with computers per say. It deals with organizing the relations between pieces of data. Since computing systems store data, they fall under the theory, but the theory doesn't exist because of computers. It's a branch of mathematics in dealing with set relations. But we've gone through this several times. Anyone who's interested can look in the archives. And for the record, I'm not grouping myself with Joe Celko or Fabin Pascal. Suffice to say I fall somewhere in between the two camps in terms of living in the real world. There are times when using a surrogate makes sense and then there are others where it just adds complexity. Jim Dettman President, Online Computer Services of WNY, Inc. (315) 699-3443 jimdettman at earthlink.net