On 7/20/07, Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dawn
Wolthuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
<snip>
"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.)
Another fine point here as there is another definition that is more
applicable to the term "mathematical theory." I sometimes poke or
"tease" relational theorists (do I know how to have fun or what?) by
using your above def of theory, but if you look at something like
http://www.answers.com/theory&r=67 and take the third def, that is
what is intended when discussing what is considered a mathematical
"theory" -- A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a
branch of mathematics.
So, when Date or Codd uses the term "relational theory" they do not
mean that it is something that is not yet proven, they are referring
to doing pure mathematics. --dawn
-------
u2-users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
