Comment by osrec
7 years ago
Let's say you gave me an atom. In this situation, you can't create other atoms. When you give me protons, electrons and neutrons, I can create any atom I like, in addition to anything else in the universe. Thus, when you give me an atom, you actually reduce the possibilities somewhat.
In reality, it's not just about the small number of constructs, but also about how fundamental they are. In one sense, atoms are less fundamental than protons/neutrons/electrons, and therefore reduce the number of possible creations.
I think your premise might be flawed.
Are we just assuming that protons and neutrons automatically pull in the quarks, neutrinos, other leptons and force carriers as well? Does the electron have a photon dependency? What about dark matter?
If not, then the our three particles are internally inconsistent and woefully incapable of building a universe. Otherwise, our set of dependencies is essentially the whole darn universe anyway.
Same goes for atoms. Give me enough and I can build a star or particle accelerator to create whatever elements or fundamental particles I want.
Wow, it was a simplistic passing metaphor. I was not expecting to get into the complexities of physics, but simply that if you operate at a more fundamental level, you can generally address a greater range of problems.
The point is that your metaphor is broken and incorrect. GP's point stands. Abstractions are leaky.
2 replies →
> Let's say you gave me an atom. In this situation, you can't create other atoms. When you give me protons, electrons and neutrons, I can create any atom I like, in addition to anything else in the universe. Thus, when you give me an atom, you actually reduce the possibilities somewhat.
> In reality, it's not just about the small number of constructs, but also about how fundamental they are. In one sense, atoms are less fundamental than protons/neutrons/electrons, and therefore reduce the number of possible creations.
I think what OJFord is getting at is, what if you had more subatomic particles to build with?
The more fundamental you go, the lesser number of things you need to form a "complete set".
Thus, whatever the complete set is for subatomic particles, it will most certainly have lesser members than for the complete set of atoms.
Getting back to my original point, SQL operates at a fundamental enough level that you do not need a great number of "constructs" to create a query that gives you whatever it is that you need.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but was just supplementing the OPs observation that SQL has surprisingly few "constructs".