Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?
From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 07:40:57 GMT
Message-ID: <dIX7g.436$S7.80_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
> I don't dispute that; please pay attention. I'm saying that SUMMARIZE is
> not an aggregate operator; in particular, it is not SUM. SUMMARIZE
> produces a relation; SUM produces a number. Is your point that you
> actually want to use the same name for these two operations? Why?
>
> All your arguments are just "Yes, it is!". It's like Monty Python's
> Argument Clinic. If you want me to understand your point of view, please
> respond to the concrete questions I ask you in other posts.
>
> As I have said, and as Marshall now agrees, you are talking about some
> GROUP that you have made up yourself, while I talk specifically about
> Tutorial D's GROUP. Trivially, if you define GROUP to be an aggregate
> operator, it *is* an aggregate operator. However, it is not the Tutorial
> D GROUP.
>
>
> Why do you keep bringing up this straw man? I have already said once
> that I don't object to Tutorial D's grammar!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 07:40:57 GMT
Message-ID: <dIX7g.436$S7.80_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Jon Heggland wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>> Jon Heggland wrote: >> All of the above is syntax. You point to two different productions in >> the grammar and claim that only one can be an aggregate. However, this >> is not true. In both situations above, SUM is an aggregate function.
>
> I don't dispute that; please pay attention. I'm saying that SUMMARIZE is
> not an aggregate operator; in particular, it is not SUM. SUMMARIZE
> produces a relation; SUM produces a number. Is your point that you
> actually want to use the same name for these two operations? Why?
>
> All your arguments are just "Yes, it is!". It's like Monty Python's
> Argument Clinic. If you want me to understand your point of view, please
> respond to the concrete questions I ask you in other posts.
LOL - you might be heading for Bobs killfile!
>> As I said previously, you focused on form while Marshall and I focused >> on function.
>
> As I have said, and as Marshall now agrees, you are talking about some
> GROUP that you have made up yourself, while I talk specifically about
> Tutorial D's GROUP. Trivially, if you define GROUP to be an aggregate
> operator, it *is* an aggregate operator. However, it is not the Tutorial
> D GROUP.
>
>> Do you have a particular objection to the productions D&D chose in the >> grammar of their tutorial language? If so, which production(s)? How does >> changing the production(s) improve the language as a language? We might >> agree with you, and we might not.
>
> Why do you keep bringing up this straw man? I have already said once
> that I don't object to Tutorial D's grammar!
Hmmm - no risk mitigation is bringing up the "straw man" - only Bob is allowed to cast such nasturtiums with abandon! :-)
Regardless you have got my interest - will read (properly) your past posts.
Cheers, Frank. Received on Tue May 09 2006 - 09:40:57 CEST