Dawn: There are several definitions in your link I would be embarrassed to use. Those who employ "Descartes Corrollary" as an analytical model, "I think therefore I'm right!", will always abuse language to come up with some of these definitions (conjecture is a theory?).
My favorite definition of statistics is a common Wall Street Journal refrain: "if you torture statistics long enough they'll confess to anything". It looks like we're throwing a wide enough definition net to snare any description of "theory". :-) Bill >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn Wolthuis >Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:56 PM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: Re: [U2] UniData 7.1 vs. MS SQL 2005 performance > >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". >> [snipped >> > >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 u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
