Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Of course, as a philosopher, you have no idea what Database Applications
are all about. And what set theory has to do with them.

Educate me. How does your toy set theory contribute to database
applications?

My "toy set theory" includes all set theory that is needed to build any
database applications. But it's nothing new in that respect.

In what sense can someone use set theory to build a database
application? And if it's nothing new in this respect, why did you
repeatedly claim, "Look, my Implementable Set Theory e.g. is covering
all Database Applications on Earth, which is .. a billion dollar
business!"

It has a simple explanation: emphasis not on "my" but on "Implementable
Set Theory", business more important than HdB (: doesn't care so much).

Hey, like you say, I'm just a lowly philosopher, so I don't understand
important things like database applications. You'll have to help me
out here. Suppose I have a database consisting of employee records
(name, gender, income, let's say) and I have an application that sorts
the database on name and prints a payroll check for each employee.
How do I build that application using your set theory? And why is
building that application in set theory something I might want to do?

Posted this in response to Virgil as well:

I still remember quite vividly the birth of Relational Database Systems,
with the advent of Oracle (somewhere in the seventies). They reached me
a folder and in that folder it was mentioned explicitly that relational
database systems were firmly supported by a solid piece of mathematics,
called, guess what: Set Theory ! Sounded very impressive to me, at that
time. (Meanwhile, Oracle databases have become my bread and butter.)

And let e.g. Google be your friend.

Han de Bruijn

.