Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

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

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

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.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

That DOES answer your question.

How do I build my application using Imputational/Complementable set
theory (or whatever it's called today)? And why should I care that I
can?

Read the F* manuals. And ah, why should _you_ care, yes ..

You *did* say that any database application can be "built" with your
theory, right? What does that mean?

I'd like to fight against someone's ingenuity, not against his lazyness.

Han de Bruijn

.