Nice one !…

The relational model will not endure. No matter how many heretics are executed.”

He he, then by the same logic:
The arithmetics will not endure.
The number theory will not endure.
The probability theory will not endure.
The integral calculus will not endure.
etc… etc… etc…
No matter how many heretics are executed. LOL

Thanks for commenting.

I’d encourage you to poke through the rest of the Database Theory & Practice topic, e.g. the post on the unsuitability of the relational model for handling text.

Specifically for Curt, re: type constraints. My understanding of Date’s writings is that column constraints are quite different that type constraints. Type constraints apply to a type (which is orthogonal to a relation) — whereas column constraints (or “relation” constraints), per se, apply at the table level. Different ballpark altogether. Type constraints ensure consistency of type across tables (relations), rather than simply at the table (relation) level. This protects, among other things, integrity violations within joins.

I just finished Database in Depth, and as a working Oracle and Sybase professional with programming and UNIX expertise, I’d say that what he’s stated and proposed is very solid.

I would, however, be interested in hearing /concrete/ examples of where Date’s logic is flawed or simply unworkable. And by “concrete” I mean mathematical and supported by evidence, not merely “well, that’s just how it is in ‘real life’.”

All too often — and I cite this post explicitly — people resort to vague generalization or assumptions that have no factual or quantatative basis. And if they do have said basis, please show it. (This is not a specific criticism of anyone here, but I did notice that nothing in the above gives specific examples, other than statements like, “it’s difficult” or “today’s databases work well.” What is difficult? Which databases work well, and at what?)

My $.02.

Adam

The relational model will not endure. No matter how many heretics are executed.

As it relates to mathemeatics, I feel I must speak in your defense. Math is a language, not a science. It is the universal language used to describe objects, events, relations, etc. It is a language which is intimately married to science, but it is not science.

And the Wikipedia excerpt really supports my viewpoint.

The Britannica quote is a sterner challenge to my claim of consensus.

I guess I have to retreat and say that there’s a modern consensus among mathematicians. What people in other disciplines — even related ones — think evidently varies more widely.

Thought I would do a quick search on some definitions of Mathematics.
According to modern consensus (and one you endorse), Mathematics is not a science.

This is by no means a comprehensive list (just a quick search), but mathemathics is defined as a science in the descriptions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mathematics
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371530?query=mathematics&ct=

I’d like to know the make up of this modern consensus is that you refer to also.

Anyway, back to work.

JZ

edit: interestingly, the definition in wikipedia has a section on whether mathematics is really a science or not (and some of those for and against), but I wouldnt say based on this alone that modern consensus says that mathematics is not a science.
Yet another area where there is no black or white, but just various shades of grey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Is_mathematics_a_science.3F

You caught me forgetting some of my history of physics. Yeah, e = mc^2 was derived in connection with Special Relativity. And yes, it was used as a strong clue to determine which isotopes had energy stored that could be released via fission (or fusion). My bad.

As for Riemann being a scientist — I wouldn’t say that he was. He was as pure a mathematician as they come. In general, I agree with the modern consensus that mathematics is NOT a science, even though it is not uncommon to do science by doing mathematics, to prove theorems in the course of scientific exploration, etc.

Basically, science is about coming up with elegant, concise, often mathematical descriptions of natural phenomena, which then can be used to make correct predictions of other natural phenomena. (This includes engineered natural phenomena.) Further, mathematics can be used to show the equivalence between, incompatibility of, etc. various scientific claims and conjectures. (Those are the cases in which a mathematical result is likely to actually BE a scientific result too.)

Even so, mathematics isn’t science any more than making a profit is crime; the overlap in both cases is considerable, but overlap is not at all the same thing as equivalence.

That might be true with respect to force, but are you suggesting that the humungous energy released by fission has nothing to do with Relativity’s prediction that mass is energy and that the energy in a given mass is proportional to a very large number, namely the speed of light, squared?

“all real scientists and engineers know that reality wins”

Your statement might apply to physical scientists like physicists and chemists. However, many mathematicians would disagree with your broad generalization. Non-euclidean geometry was perfectly valid science even back when we seemed to live in a euclidean world. By your reasoning, Reimann was magically transformed from a non-scientist into a scientist when Einstein published his first theory.

Even then, one might argue by your reasoning that neither was a scientist until others developed technologies capable of testing Einstein’s theory.

One wonders what magic event made “A real scientist” a real scientist.