Re: A Normalization Question

> > Both you and RM have limited definitions/rules.
>
> Yes, so what? The limitations don't restrict my ability to do what is
> needed.

You may not have needed so much thus far. My needs are more for AI type applications and RM falls short in this area. In time, I will provide other examples that will demonstrate RM's limitations (in addition to not being able to recognize a redundant string).

> > The most general level of normalization takes place at the level of thing;
> > not tuples, attributes, values, lists, bags, tree, relations, etc.
>
> A spurious argument, and confusing the logical with the physical again.

It is you who are confusing logical with physical as you have difficulty understanding that strings and symbols can and are be represented at the logical layer in my examples and discussions.

> The user enters data at the logical.

This is correct.

> The RDBMS stores it in symbols and strings physically.

While true, it is more correct to says that a db stores everything (including logical symbols and strings) physically.

> > Why do you keep insisting that RM's implementations are allowing user to
> > enter non-logical data?
>
> I don't.

They why do you keep saying that logical symbol and string are physical? In general, RM implemenation only allows user to enter logical data, which includes symbols and strings.

> > Please explain how to determine which layer
> > user-entered data in a RM db belongs to?
>
> See above.

Above you indicate user enters data at the logical level, but now you seem to be saying user enter symbols and string (which is data) at the physical level. You are contradicting yourself.

> > Bits, bytes and strings can be represented at a logical layer, however
> > they are not required at the hardware layer. For example, the human
> > brain represents them without having them at the hardware layer.
>
> But a computer and a brain are not the same thing and do not work the same
> way. Any attempt to make an equal comparison is lunacy.

Phsyically a computer and a brain are different things. However, at higher levels of abstraction, there are many similarities. Fundamentally, both the human brain and a db are representing/processing things. A failure to recognize equivalency at higher levels of abstraction, may be a sign of limited lunacy.

> It's like comparing apples and oranges, or inanimate objects and humans

It is a limited mind that is unable to compare apples, oranges, "inanimate" objects (ie computers) and humans at some level of abstraction. This maybe because you are unable to abstract from the physical layer. Received on Sun Jul 18 2004 - 06:11:37 CEST