Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- From: Marshall <marshall.spight@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
On May 3, 8:14 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:18 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:44 am, Jan Burse <janbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This reminds me of the battle between CBL and Meghill:
[...]
Backhouse: I was using the Hindu System.
(Probably the author meant Jim Backus?)
That was pretty funny.
Some time ago in comp.databases.theory I parodied
a blog post entitled "Is Codd Dead?", Codd being Ted Codd,
the father of modern data management techniques.
Codd noticed that databases contain relations. The rest of what he
said was a totally failed attempt to formalize and automate database
query processing. SQL is an example of that failure, by virtue of it
being only a programming language rather than an automatic query
processor.
"Totally failed" is too strong. Partly failed, partly succeeded.
Still a definite step forward if you compare it to what came
before.
(History of data management is probably off-topic, though.)
Marshall
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- References:
- Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- From: Marshall
- Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- Prev by Date: Re: Pseudo Negation - A Formal Definition of "As Strong as Arithmetic"
- Next by Date: Jewellery
- Previous by thread: Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- Next by thread: Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|