In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dawn
Wolthuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Ummm ... but as Dawn says, a lot of its advocates treat it as a
mathematical model - and then use that to try and PREscribe how the
world is supposed to work - a mathematical trait if ever there was one!
I can't let that one slide by, dear scientist colleague. The
mathematician happily works within the world of mathematics. It is
the scientist, "applied mathematician" (not considered to BE a
mathematician at all by pure mathematicians ;-) ), engineer, or other
practitioner who connects the matheatics to the world.
The (true) scientist does NOT attempt to PREscribe how the world works
:-) But I was probably (mis?)quoting the following...
> The theory itself does not ban empirical testing. Those who think
> that relational theory is pure even after they apply it, try to put it
> on a pedestal where it is immune to being tested even in its
> application.
:-)
So, when relational theorists are "doing" relational theory, they are
happily doing mathematics. When they indicate that it is relevant to
software, they are not doing mathematics. Look to the scientists when
you want an example of mis-applied mathematics. In fact, that is
where you found your example. Cheers! --dawn
Mmmmmm
Was Galileo trying to DEscribe, or PREscribe. The fact is, he didn't
have the mathematical tools to do the job - as I say it was Kepler who
developed them maybe a couple of centuries later - which is why he
wasn't believed.
So are the relational people Computer *Scientists* or Computer
*Mathematicians*? I think half the trouble nowadays is that people don't
understand the difference between maths and science. I now have an
extremely simple definition, but it took me a Masters course module, and
then a long time, to get it all right.
"Mathematicians prove theories correct, Scientists prove theories
wrong".
Computer Science is in the business of proving things correct, therefore
it can't be science :-( Oh - and you need the correct definition of a
theory before you can understand the above definition - "A theory is
something which is not yet proven". (And for those who wonder at that
definition, seeing as we seem to believe many scientific theories as
"proven", scientific theories are believed precisely because we have
been UNABLE to prove them wrong. Mind you, I can't off-hand recall *any*
scientific theories currently that haven't - at least in the fine detail
- been proven wrong.)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the
thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man
lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998
Visit the MaVerick web-site - <http://www.maverick-dbms.org> Open Source Pick
-------
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
