Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Iran: There is No Thrill, Like Overkill (2006)
Najaf (2004)
The Way Forward [Updated: Obama announces oppositi...
The Kurdish Connection
The Coming of Age: Reactionary Revolution 1857-187...
The Panic of 2008
Billionaires for Peak Oil (2005)
American Legitimism (2005)
the revolt of the economists (2005)
Romney Concedes the Election (2012)
A teapot, a tempest, and a trope (2012)
Farewell to Kings (2003)
A World Half Free (2005)
Impeachment (2006 Unpublished)
Tokyo Down (2006)

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Pray for Me

Relational database management 4


It might seem that there is no connection between finding longitude, and finding a way to have just one connection, as opposed two. It might seem that these are separate problems requiring separate solutions. And for the 18th century this was the case, but then Georg Cantor drifted in. There were two pieces that he contributed. First, he found that infinity is different from finite, and then issued that there were at least two kinds of infinity: the natural number, and the, though we don't see this way in pure mathematics, real number. In this chapter we will deal with what this means, and why it is important.

There are some mathematicians who do work, and they do not attract any attention. Such as Leonard Euler, who made many contributions and, as far as the historical eye can see, did not raise any failures. This despite making important discoveries in different fields such as a infinitesimal calculus, among a host of others. Then there are mathematicians who generate controversy, this is the fate of Georg Cantor. Who became known for the important one-to-one correspondence between numbers. He came to mathematics not describing any infinite set theories, and left it by proving there are an unlimited number if infinite sets, and there are at least two separate infinite sets which are not countable between each other. What he did not prove, is if there are only two.

Now, numbers had been known to be irrational, that is not countable for a very long time, but what this did not take into account was there were numbers that were countable, and numbers which were not countable, and that both of these sets were infinite, and infinite in two separate ways. In other words, there was unlimited but countable, and unlimited and not countable, and these were different sets of numbers. Moreover, a small number of the countable numbers was exactly the same as a much larger share of them, and both of these were the same number.

Think about squares. It is obvious that there are more numbers that are not square then squares. It is also obvious there are the same number of squares, as numbers that are not square. It seems to be a contradiction, how can there be more not squares than squares, and at the same time an equal number of squares and not squares?

This is where Cantor fits in. Is more famous method is coming on the diagonals. What he does is show that numbers, such as 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on are the same as 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 and so on, that there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between two sets. There is a one-to-one correspondence between a finite number, but there is between an infinite number. First he shows that this could not be the case because there are an infinite number of 1/2, 2/3 and so for each 1, and so on. But he then counts not up-and-down, nor across, but along the diagonal. Then Cantor showed that there was an uncountable set, which had more members than number of countable but unlimited sets. These were sets which didn't end. Remember while there were unlimited number of numbers, the countable sets individually had a name – 1/2 for example, even if they did not have a name but could theoretically have a name, that made no difference. But numbers which could not be count, even by an infinitely patient man, were different. These are things such as pi, which my computer does not let me represent, our different. Thus there are two sets of infinite numbers, Countable and uncountable.

Realize immature amateur mathematicians still come up with a proof that they can “square the circle”, that is with a straight edge and compass built a square which is the same as a circle. And perhaps always will do so. I suppose it's one of the tests for an amateur mathematician.

What he does is divide the proof into two parts. The first part takes a random sequence of real numbers, x0,x1,..xn and a set of coefficients pairs [a,b] which has at least one pair is not part of the real numbers. He does by selecting pair of coefficients where a is increasing, and b is decreasing; and every member of a is smaller than every member of b. Then he breaks in to two cases: as said the finite case and the infinite case. If it is the finite case, then only one number can be inside an,bn . If it is of the infinite case then he doesn't need to counter, because, x0,x1,..xn is not in infinite order, remember that they are finite by definition. Actually, he goes one step further, one case where a=b, and the other one where a < b.

Let me take and example: 6x2+9x+5 it would become (1)(5)x0+(2)(3)x1+(3)(3)x2.
What Cantor does is the orders of the coefficient by their heigh and then orders, then orders the real roots by the same height, and shows this cannot be counted, either by infinite or finite means. This is not the normal way of doing things, but it is Cantor's way of doing things. And this is basically the first proof he ever publishes.

Cantor discussed the proof with Dedekind, and pointed out that it would be of interest if this proof could have produced a new theory of Liouville's that numbers are valid. He tries to do this in a proof, but it needs an additional proof, which he then supplies. He then announces just for Christmas 1873 a proof which not only answers whether the real numbers are counted, but that there are transcendental numbers. But Cantor realized that this was a bridge too far. So he omits this, and returns to prove with the first, that is the second proof, which he publishes.

That could be the end of Cantor's story.

But isn't yet, having proved there one time of countable infinity, he next proves that there is an uncountable kind of infinity, which is larger than the countable kind, but he doesn't know if the number of the continuum, which is what he calls it, is the next number in the sequence of uncountable figures. Thus he makes the first prove of zero, but he does not make the second proof of one, because he doesn't know if there is something beneath his second proof that his larger then the proof of zero, which he knows his the smallest kind of infinity, but he doesn't know if there is a larger infinity then the countable numbers, but smaller than his proof that uncountable numbers. In other words, he doesn't actually know, though he and we are pretty certain that it's true, that all of the numbers such as pi are really the next set of numbers. And this has been true for almost a century, we don't know that pi, and the other countless unending numbers are the next in the sequence. But as I said, most people are pretty sure. It's just that “pretty sure” it is not the same as “proven to be”.

And no one who is in their right mind is sure that “proven to be” really is true. Note that cantors proof doesn't mean that the numbers of x need to be countable numbers, they can be uncountable numbers, but each one needs to be a specific number, even though you don't know which member it is. This is strange that you may not know exactly which number it is, but you can say that it is a specific number.

So Cantor is known for the following ideas:
      1. There are a countable number of numbers.
      2. There are an uncountable number of numbers.
      3. The number of uncountable numbers is larger.
      4. There may be, though it is unlikely, that there may be a set between the first two which is larger than the countable numbers, but smaller than uncountable numbers.

And that will leave a mark that people will remember for at least 100 years.

Monday, December 22, 2014

Non-Fiction compile

I will be compiling nonfiction in the link to the side.  I have done so for a few pieces of ready,  but more will come.

relational database management 3


So let's go over the two glitches that we have. One is the longitudinal glitch. We're do you start longitude? In one case it simple - 0°. but that only works when you know where zero is. Where you have nothing, then that is zero. But what about the case where you don't have nothing? Let me explain. Look at the world, and tell me where nothing is. There is not a point on the globe, which you can point to, which has “nothing”. You have to just pick on arbitrary point, which in the case of the world is 0° Greenwich Mean Time. But that only was true, universally, from 1884. for the time though there were conventions, and the most common of which was GMT, there were other points that could be used. And of course, because this was a fight between capitals, everyone had a different angle. Some wanted Greenwich, others preferred Washington, Paris was common, and so was St. Petersburg.

What this led to was a series of prizes, 1567 Philip the II of Spain offered a prize, and Philip the III of Spain increased it 1598. Holland offered a prize in 1636. then Louis XIV offered a prize in 1666. only in 1714 was written entered in to establishing a prize. Note that these were on the Atlantic seaboard. There is reason for this, which does not take any time to figure out. Countries on the Atlantic seaboard were going to be the ones who would benefit the most from longitude.

What everyone figured out, was the relationship between time and longitude. In this period they were not treating numbers as a kind of clock, that would be a different insight. That cards would be a kind of time didn't enter in to anyone's equations. And we will get to reading of cards in the next chapter with Pascal. So what everyone was thinking had to do with a round sphere, and which point on it is Zero Meridian. And as you can see from the prizes, offered by Spain, Holland, France, and finally Great Britain, was there was intense interest in this. They weren't competing for a theoretical prize that was of no value, they were competing for an intensely practical problems. Longitude had real meaning, as the real disaster in 22 October, in 1707, off of Sicily show. Their were 1400 Mariners who lost their lives. Now realize that in 1707 roughly, an I mean very roughly because different experts quote different numbers on this, about 750 million people had been born. As opposed to 7 billion.

So by one estimate, there are nine times as many people on the globe. Think about disaster larger than 9/11, or Pearl Harbor. Think about the disaster as large as the rape of Nanjing. There are disasters worse, but until this moment, you probably haven't heard of 1707 before. Where has you have heard of several disasters much smaller in scale. As with 9/11, four ships were lost. There is no accurate count of the dead, estimates range between 1400, and 2000. but adjusted for the time, that is larger than any year disaster, any fleet disaster, and only assumes it's appropriate scale among the massacres of the time. And as I said, you probably haven't heard of it until this moment.

That was the terror of longitude. It would wipe clean, by the wrath of God, said Raiders of Lost Ark, an entire fleet. Thus it was mandatory that a prize be awarded to finding out what latitude the ships have, because that was what people understood was the problem. It wasn't the real problem from a relational database management, it was the problem as they understood it. They began to work on the longitudinal problem, as they understood it. And that meant breaking out how far from a line fixed in space a ship was.

There were two routes to go, one was a Galileo route, that is of tracking the moons of Jupiter, and figuring out where they were. The other method was to calculate and internal distance of latitude, and compared with what would be known were they standing on the prime Meridian. This actually involves two calculations. One is how far east or west you are, and the other one is our you along the Prime Meridian, or along the reverse side. Because remember there are two lines drawn, one is the Prime Meridian, and the other one could be said to be the Counter-prime Meridian.

These two calculations are not easy, and people as only that there calculation be good enough. As we know from time, good enough means not really good enough. If you don't think that this is important today, think about the disaster which engulfed MH370, who was lost by a different means, but the same ends. It to was lost by a line of longitude. Ignore such things as the US Army did it, and look at the details. It slipped off the radar, and cruised for eight hours. Most of the time everyone was dead. In other words, the problem of longitude has been not been solved, it is solved well enough for current purposes.

What people wanted him to 17th and 18th centuries was to find the location of a very slow moving ship. And they want to know where the shoals were, that was good enough for them. Thus they didn't want to know enough to realize that longitudinal problem is also the card problem. Though they worked on both problems, they did not understand that they were the same.

So through the 1700s people worked on the two solutions to longitudinal problem: and they came up with solutions to both. For fixed calculations on land, the way to go was to calculate the moons, because moons are fixed and you can go over the calculations and tell the are correct. On the sea, however, you only have one chance, and you had best make it count. In that form, you place a great deal of faith in the calculations, rather than the siting of moons, because you only have an instant to do the siding, and many hours to do the calculations. In other words, though it seems there is one problem, there are two roads to go, and each one of them has a different solution. If you have plenty of time to the calculations, but not much time to cite - you quickly find the way to cite quickly and to the calculations. Where as if you have plenty of time to cite, then oftentimes you will carefully cite. And this is what happened here: if you have only one moment to get right, you take a very quick citation, and work out the details. This is what John Harrison did. While he had some help, it was his vision that made a timepiece which was sufficient alone to do the work.


On the other side of the problem, this is glicth #2. that being of chance and cards, a man by the name of Blaise Pascal realized that chance was only the result of a theoretical hand, and that all hands were different in the exact same degree. It is humans that want particular hands, in a particular order. And thus he described Pascal triangle. Of course it had been studying before, but Pascal noted that they were binomial coefficients of Pascal's rule, which is expanded to n-dimensions by Pascal's simplex.

What Pascale was not the first person to realized was that every hand was derived from the two numbers above it. This was very old, Pingala, or one of his disciples, knew in the second century BC. What he did realize was that the properties of several sets is contained within the triangle. This leads to other places that we do not have time to discuss, such as Sierpinski triangle, or a grid of knights moving on a Plinko game board. What we are interested in is how random becomes order, because we're interested in a relational database management system, which seeks order rather than randomness.

Pascal realized that he could do calculations, and proceeded to show that a Pascal calculator could do important work. For example he showed that addition did not mean the calculator could do multiplication, which is later to be shown to be important. But what was regarded as important was his work with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, and is refutation of Aristotle's dictum that nature abhors a vacuum.

Now if I were gazing at Pascal, I would have no trouble in talking about the amazing things that he did. But I'm not. Instead, I am going to talk about what is missing. And one thing that is missing is Pascaline is a demonstration that multiplication is not simply repeat subtraction. It comes close to this, but though the principal is there, no one, Not even Pascal, notices it. But someone will notice it and form the correct conclusion. That is, he will notice that addition and subtraction, without multiplication, are different. Addition and subtraction without multiplication are simple, multiplication is complex. That addition is not the same as subtraction is difficult to understand, and in time I will have to explain.

As for Pascal, he was dying, and knew this: saying “Sickness is the natural state of Christians.” and disorder is a natural state of orderly things. He died at only 39.

It may seem that I am making relational database management complex. On the contrary, humans made relational database management complex, because they didn't understand just what they were up against. So things are seemingly complex, because they didn't know that there was anything to solve. Their were myriad of problems which would be solved, without realizing that many of the pieces were actually the same. They had been glimpses, and no more than that. Thus they were happy with prizes to find longitude, and shown that randomness was in fact ordered. But they did not realize they were on the wider horizon.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

relational database management 2


One has to begin some place. And any story can begin in multiple places, and still make sense. In our before, during, and after format, one has to begin with the point in the story where someone realizes that there is a problem, and realizes that there has to be separated from that story that leads elsewhere. That is why we begin with Galileo Galilei, because he delivers both the processor, and the database fully formed in his work.

Consider Galileo Galilei, working in the late Renaissance. First of all, what do we mean by the Renaissance Period? It is not a question which ordinary people really discuss, because they think they know what the Renaissance Period means, but this is an illusion. Because the Renaissance is defined by how other people use it, and the definition goes back only a century and a half. And there have been scholars that say “This is a not the late Renaissance, is a period called the Mannerist, and it is totally different from before.” they will associate the scientist Leonardo da Vinci as “Renaissance”, especially with buildings that are divided evenly, as oppose to the “Mannererist” which they associate with smaller domes with decidedly larger central domes.

Who defines it? Jacob Burckhardt, who was a historian of art and culture, and important in both of these two endeavors. And his major book is entitled the Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. This is important, because many of people who define eras, have something in mind for what they want, and only part of this is consumed by other people, who want something else. Burckhardt had a particular idea when he invented Renaissance, but people who follow the him in English did not agree. That means when you want to use “Renaissance” you have two take into account what the owner of the work meant, and what he did not mean. When using the word reassigns in a Burkhart sense, one has two realize it is different from other people.

This means that defining Galileo as Renaissance already marked to as being in a particular vein, and you should use it knowing what it means. Most of the people want a definition which confirms the definition that they already understand, even if it is not the definition which is meant by your favorite teacher or other. This is going to get you in to trouble, just know that and go on with your work, defining the word from whichever book it is in. someone will get up at the back of the class and contradict you, because that's what people do. They will tell you that all the world defines the word the way they wanted to find not the way you wanted defined. If you know this is coming you'll be prepared to prevent it, and if you don't your in for a rough time, because some definitions do not last.

So back to Galileo Galilei, and is formula which has absorbed the attention of scholars who can't even agree on what name he was working in, begin to parts of the same question. He defined the clock, and he defined infinity. And both of them are key concepts.

Let's begin with the clock. As with most concepts in physics we do not think much about it, even though we know that his division arises from someplace. In this case, it began from Galileo wanting to measure time periods, and having no way to do so, until he discovered that swinging back and forth a pendulum had a clock that did not vary. In 1602 Galileo used the regular motion, because pendulums keep exact time no matter how much they swing. He was the first person that we know of to do this. It does not matter the length, of the so-called amplitude, and does not matter the amount of mass. The period is independent of amplitude, a property called iso-cronyism. What this means is that a simple pendulum accounts for about 15 seconds a day of error. Wikipedia reminds us that the parents of air, the mass of the string, the shape and size of the ball, and flexibility and strength of the string all take in to account there various bits of error. And still amounts to one of the smallest errors. In 1602, what Galileo grasped was that this error was small, and could be ignored for his purposes.

What this meant on the larger scale, is that some kind of pendulum could be used as a clock. We will get to all of the details, but the main thrust, a pendulum has clock, still exists even though it's form is very different. This is a principle that crops up in many places, make a small modification to a principal, and show that it is the same with a few modifications.

With this principle, that a pendulum does not need to be exact, he started a chain. Realize going back to Aristotle, people had thought that the weight matters. In other words almost 2000 years was wrong. Think about that for a moment, for 2000 years people thought that a small swing was of course different from a large swing. And Galileo disproved that. Swings don't matter in terms of how much the pendulum moves, except for small degrees, which has we have noted, you can account for. And Galileo showed this by measuring that for simple degrees, heavy and light were the same, in contradiction to Aristotle, who assumed that they would be different. There was revolution in the air.

The other thing that Galileo discovered, was that infinity was different from finite amounts of time. This is a more theoretical guide of revolution. It wasn't measured by strings, and weights, it was measured by the mind, and written down by numerous people other than Galilei, but he described them in detail, in Two New Sciences, and it began with squares, that is with numbers which can be shown to be the square of another number. At first glance, the numbers that are not square should be more numerous than numbers that are square, but for every number there is a number which is the square of that particular number.

But then he put the idea, as George Gamow observed over 50 years ago, “back on to the pile”. This is not uncommon, the person who discovers an idea usually doesn't realize what is going on. But these two ideas would eventually make up the processor and the database. But of course it would be a long time.But in 1612 there was 1 that good enough, was the date that Galileo proposed a different way: the moons of Jupiter.

So the two theories, which in Galileo's day were not conjoined, would sit around and tell their was a spark from a great ideal man himself: Sir Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton knew about Galileo's discovery that a pendulum was constant in its motion, and introduced a theory which was broader. Not only did pendulums move the same way, but all things did if one looked at them the right way. If Galileo drew a problem set, then Isaac Newton defined how the problem was to be solved. He saw the pendulum as the simplest case of what could be drawn as a more general case, The pendulum was the simplest case, but all cases were to from that, which was a surprise. Think about the fact that the pendulum is just the simplest case.

Now the good spend a great deal of time looking at just pendulum, and going a great many directions with. The pendulum is a basic machine which touches all sorts of physics, and I would like to tell you all sorts of things about. But we have a core thesis, and that is the pendulum is reproduced as a clock which you don't even see, in this processor. So we will leave you behind with two ideas, he noted the fact that the moons were in fact the same as pendulums, and that therefore there were two ways about setting a time, monitor emotions of moons, and develop precise pendulums. And so said off a race, define moons as one way of developing longitude, and the other way is to develop precise ways of measuring pensions. What it also said, is there are two places where longitude flips from positive to negative. One is at 0°, and the other is halfway round the world. This is important because every time you have a number which has a 0°, then someplace it will also have two flip back. And that is a problem, because in incident space there are numbers which only flip once, not twice. There is a hidden problem with numbers, because all that we can measure flips twice, and we can only simulate numbers which flip once. On a globe things flip twice, so there is a problem, but in flat space they only flip once. And great deal of time spent figuring out how to place the second flip a great deal for a way so it does not get noticed.

On North and South, that is latitude, there is a different problem. Eventually all numbers reach 90°, and they are is no South, or North, to turn back on. Your at 90° and can only move south in any direction. These two problems, have only a general solution, and it is by agreement, not physics.

Why does Sir Isaac Newton do this? Think about latitude and longitude, they are on a circle, and so will flip twice. Another words, no trouble, to flips in the real world, and to a two in the fictional space. So far, so good. But what about the other case? Where is there only one flip? Unfortunately the answer is there is no version of fictional space that has only one flip in the digital universe. All versions of the digital universe are mapped onto spheres. This means that you have hide one of the flips. Every fictional universe is a sphere, not a plane.

So you have two cheat, and put your plane near the 0° and hope that it will not cross the other side. This is not a problem, until it is.

Let's retrace the steps we have taken. First there was Galileo, who saw to different things: one was the pendulum, and the other was that infinite space was different from finite space. Then came along Newton who noticed that you could map two value space on to one value space, with the caveat that it would turn positive somewhere along the line. You may ask, what does this have to to do with relational databases. And the answer is that two value spaces fit in to the plan, but there is no way in digital space to do one valued logic.

Which means that a relational database has a hidden problem, dealing with space. Every space runs out and changes degree. It can be a flip as in East-West, or it can be made to run out, as in North-South. If you want and example, consider your last name. Originally it ran out after only seven letters. Newberr was my last name, because it only stored seven letters. And some very common names were that way, such as Washing, and don't get me started on names from Mumbai. Gradually fields were made large enough, but that only means that they were large enough for an ever smaller group of people. I'm sure that someone out there is cut off on some system. 

So that means we have two go to George Cantor, who realizes there are at leased two infinite degrees. Not that this will help Newberr, or Washing, but it makes it clear that the problem is going to go away. In other words, it's a glitch that does not go away.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Wagner, Rackham, Joyce, Tolkien, Pound

Their needs to be something  on the figures,  and on their relationship. I will work on this
after doing the relational database  management.

Relational database management 1



This is a story about the underpinnings of what we now call relational databases. It may sound fancy to remember Codd and Date, the progenitors of the relational database, are not household names. But even with with these two, the story goes back several years. This is that story in the outlines, or at least a version of it, which reaches back not to Codd and Date, but to Galileo Galileo, and forward to an unknown future.

It is a story of theory, that is how things ought to be, practice, that is the trade-offs between different kinds of theory, and structure, that is what needs to be codified and what will be left for other people to decide. Because, in programming languages, there is what you need to decide, and what can be left for other people to decide at a later date.

Before we can begin with the beginning, we have to start out with what Codd and Date database actually is, and what has two happen on the computer side. Is it to be done by the processor, or the database. Because in the end processor and database are to completely separate objects.

What is the database suppose to do. Remember that the database is a way of storing structured data in a binary format, which regards tupples as the primary way of storing data. You may think that this is obvious, but you would be mistaken. Several brilliant minds, some you know and some you don't, have made it obvious through the design that is obvious only in retrospect. That's why we're going to cover this in detail, so that you will know what kind of power you're dealing with in a relational database. There are simpler ways of dealing with data, and my be, for example size, that you will use one of them.

First of all, we need to say what a relation to its is, and how we can fake it. Because that is what we do. Relational database combines a series of tuples across a large range of rows. This then is key: there are a lot more rows which contain database generic vs. database specific. In other words, there are a lot more records than rows. Not in all cases, but most databases have at least one, and probably more than one. The other thing that databases have is across between two fields, say people and companies, and they relate these two fields.

So what did people use before relational databases came in to being? Usually hierarchical database design, which organized data by trees, and is still used today. What the relational database proved is that any hierarchy can be relational. Even more databases were flat, with one column which was a tab delimited text file, and a series of records. This meant that it was relation one sense, because it could have numbers in one direction, that could easily be changed. But it's numbers in the other direction were fixed. It had only one set of rows which were defined by the program. And that is where Codd and Date came in. the proved that by making just a few changes, they could make any number of fields. And as we shall show, that made all the difference between a flat file, and any number of flat files.

And that leads to our next nutcase to crack. As far as pure relational theorists are concerned, there is no relational databases, or perhaps one. As far as practicable means, there are dozens. If your already a computer programmer, this is just another case out of several. If you are not, it seems like theoreticians and the programmers are at odds with each other. I would tell you, there are reasons for this which we will get into at a later date, and there are widely different ideas. But the main thrust of the convention, is whether or not this discussion should even be had. To the theoreticians, it says that no relational database exists, and they can stay in the towers, dreaming about things that don't exist. While programmers can argue which model is close enough for government work, and they have several different options to choose from. What this says, is are you theoretician or programer?

So the discussion is, is it relational, and to what degree? If you have two suit all of the () you don't have more than one choice, and so I will let you get on with that choice. You know who you are. For everyone else, you have to define how relational database you want, and then select a choice based on that.

So for the theoreticians, Codd and Date are your keys to the entire world of theoretical databases. You will have to look back at the ancestors of Codd and Date to see who the contributors to their theory was. But for the programmers there are two contributors, Kernighan and Ritchie, the two gentlemen who created the C programming language. You might think, what does a programming language do for the relational database construct. It was these two gentlemen who formulated the hidden language, not what the relational database model used, but how it was implemented. Without the relation database model, C would have just been another programming language. And remember their were lots of programming languages.

C was written in a style called “ the tutorial” which began with an explanation by way of examples. It then moved to a more broad based explanation and then finally with a reference manual. Where as Codd and Date had myriad attempts to explain what they were doing, Kernighan and Richie produced exactly one manual, and then moved on to different things, only coming back to the menu when it was time to revisit it for ANSI C, that is, when it became a standard that needed a revision. Including a trivial change saying that 8 and 9 are not octal digits.

The reason that see was the language of programming was because it took the relational database model and implement as just another way of doing databases. ANSI C didn't care overly much about what database you were using, that was something to be decided when you linked in languages. Remember this was a revelation. The computer language only worried about the processor, and it made other decisions only about the processor. And that meant that whether you're database was flat or something else was a matter for the language, not the processor.

This meant something important. C was small. This important point needs to be emphasized. C was small. That meant that anything which could be done in a library, was done there.

The second point of C was it was developed at the same time as the relation database model. This was not a coincidence. 1970 was a time where people looked at flat file and flat file relational databases, and they were at the cusp of doing things a different way, and they knew it. People do not know that there are doing things a different way most of the time. But 1970, in the world of computing, the new that there had to be a better way than Lisp, or Cobol, or any one of a number of other languages. That is why when you look back years around 1970 produced two of the seminal pieces of programming logic. These two pieces are still around, though they had changed, and they have been crowded by imitators. They even have been superseded, but not forgotten. Not yet anyway.

So is there a point to all this? Yes, there are three points.

One, no matter which database you select, there will be a compromise on a purely theoretical basis. Since we are coming to the relational database on theoretical terms, this is an issue that we must decide. People who are coming to this from practical terms may spend a few minutes say “ this database is relational enough, or has a few exceptions that we know about.” Sadly for us, that will not be possible, where defining which things are possible in which circumstances. Suffice it to say we are the people that people are looking to for answers when they have questions.

Two, do we want to be relational at all? This is a serious question, when to we want to allow enough exceptions that the core of a relational database is not worth the trouble. Clearly there are reasons to do so, which is why we have NoSQL, and objective, and other forms rather than relational at all. Some of these are reformulations of older things that have a purpose that relational database models are not necessary for. Some of these are for when there is no need for them, or at least for free small set of relational database design. Other times, there is so much data to be crunch through, that the full relational database model is to ornate. Why bother to do if you don't have to? Why not allow somebody else to do it? Remember there are thousands of examples, and only a few will need the full relational database model.

And third, to we want programmers to know that we have done this? They don't really need to know, in most cases. I will give you an example. If you assign a number to something, that number will come around and have two cases which one case is zero, and the other case is some large number which isn't supposed to be going from positive to negative, but does so anyway. In what cases to say need to know about this other number? And that will actually change. For example, what about sex, as in male or female? In 1960, the way you determined whether people needed to know or not, was were they part of the medical establishment that needed to know that there were more than two genders? In 1960, that was a very small number indeed. But in 2010, everyone had to know, because anyone could have a gender that was different from what seemed to be. A person could be one, have an aunt or an uncle who was one, or simply do someone who was different.

So well some questions I will be the answer for you, there are many more questions which you will encounter and have to answer for yourself. This is because you may be practicing relational database building in 50 years. And in that time, things may be different than they are right now. And you will have to answer, and explain the answer to other people, and it might be a different answer than we come up with here. Things change, and that his actually a relational database way of looking at things. Because in our place there me only be three answers, true, false, and null, but in the world of 2100, which I remind you, at least some of you will, be sitting here with a group of students, and answering the same questions, but they will have different answers, though you will have to note the fact that way back in the 2000's they did not realize at the time that that was the case.

So what we will look at is what is the relational database model in theory and in practice, and how do those things come together and form this triangle of theory, practice, and structure.