Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:50:18 GMT
Message-ID: <KXFgg.17468$>

Cimode wrote:

> Bob Badour,
> You declared talking about the posting I previously made
> // instance, he keeps referring to bidimensionality of a physical
> representation of a row when that is basically meaningless to the
> anglophones according to the definitions of the terms he uses, and he
> has made absolutely no effort to try to define the terms he is
> using.//
> At several occasions in the thread, I gave explicit (which makes them
> look *wordy* according to your communication standard) explanations and
> even reused you own examples to point out the fundamental issue at
> stake which is in-memory representation of relvars and what kind of OO
> mechanisms could help improving the situation. But you got the nerve
> indicating that I make no effort to define them!

With all due respect, your use of "bidimensionality" is nonsense. You claim to use it to refer to the physical level of discourse but then you use it when referring directly to logical entities.

You claim that physical memories are multidimensional; however, on the one occasion I recall anyone using a computational model with multiple dimensions of memories, it was used in the constructive proof that a single-tape turing machine is just as expressive as a multiple-tape turing machine.

Segmented memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory. Virtual memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory. Paged memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory.

In the computational models people will find familiar, memory uses a linear address space: it has one dimension generally expressed as an unsigned integer defined in some large range. That property is a property of the physical address space and not a property of the data stored in the memory.

If you plan to use an unfamiliar computational model, you will have to fully define that computational model or nobody will have a clue what you are talking about.

To give yourself some indication of why anglophones cannot understand you when you use the word "bidimensionality" while flitting between the logical and the physical, I suggest you search for the following terms on google including the quotation marks for each.

"virtual memory"
"segmented memory"
"linear memory"
"bidimensional memory"

While I get tens of thousands of hits or more for the first two, I get a total of 4 hits for the last one. Two of those hits relate to psychology. One of those hits defines a computational model for the study of evolution. The remaining hit, which is only available in the cache, appears in the description of a speech given once about a year ago on a topic of digital image processing related to cryptography.

> What exact form of definition may help then (please answer this
> particular question)?

If you want to use a computational model using a non-linear address space, you will have to fully define the computational model.

   You pointed out at several occasions that these
> statement were nonsense?

For good reason. The statements made absolutely no sense even after you tried to clarify them.

At least 2 people on this thread have made
> sense and addressed the main issue asking relevant questions ( J M
> Davitt and Alvin Ryder).

J M Davitt asked once for clarification indicating you were not communicating well and once pointed out that your style of quoting interferes with communication. I don't recall him expressing any confidence in his comprehension of what you wrote.

I long ago added Alvin to my twit-filter. I forget whether that was due to a lack of intellectual honesty on his part or worse. That he might pretend to make sense of what you wrote does not make it any more sensible.

> As nonsense can not be understood by anybody because it lacks
> coherence, the logic behind you declaring that my comments are being
> nonsense is basically flawed.

You have not established that anyone really made sense of what you wrote. One person tried to rephrase what you wrote into something he considered sensible, and he asked you for clarification at that time. The other person is just a fool. Fools talk nonsense all the time.

> I have at several occasions pointed out that the points you made were
> irrelevant to the objective of this thread but you keep bringing back
> the subject off track and blaming me for being repetitive.

Nothing is really relevant to nonsense. I am trying to give you an opportunity to rephrase what you are trying to communicate into something sensible. You keep refusing and insisting that your prior gibberish should make sense to people. Clearly, it does not.

> //I asked him point blank why he thought the linearity of the address
> space had any bearing on the dimensionality of the table, and he
> ignored
> the question. I don't think he understands enough english to
> participate
> effectively.//
> My grasp of english is far from being perfect (I know that) but it is
> sufficient to point out that the question you adressed is irrelevant.

I disagree. Confusing a property of a physical address space with a property of a logical entity is nonsense. When I put a potato into boiling water, I don't conclude that the boiling point of potatos is 100 degrees celsius nor do I conclude it is a property of cooked potatos as opposed to potatos in general.

Yet, having put a logical structure into a linear memory, you expressed a property of the linear memory as a property of the logical structure. Don't do that. It's nonsense even if you say it only applies to the implementation of the logical structure in the physical address space.

> Answer is this last question is obviously no. How can you ask this
> question when I clearly indicated that physical layer does not define
> logical deifnition of an R Table.

You and I obviously use different definitions for "clearly". You clearly and repeatedly used "bidimensionality" in reference to an SQL table.

   You even indicated rightfully to vc
> that I am not trying to redefine a logical model.

I simply repeated your claim, and I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thus far, I have assumed the problems with communication stemmed from your use of a foreign language, and I am trying to give you the opportunity to overcome that impediment.

   What you believe is
> the question I have adressed would have indicated the opposite.

It wasn't a yes or no question. You seem to be claiming that I asked a loaded question; however, I think most of the knowledgeable english speaking people will find the question very reasonable given your previous statements.

Are you saying you want to rephrase what you wrote previously such that you no longer express the properties of the physical memory as properties of the logical entity?

> Again, my belief is the fact that physical addressing scheme (be it
> linear or bidimensional) has a limiting effect onto representating and
> therefore manipulating adequately a relvar which is totally different
> from what you think I am stating.
> I hope this makes more sense.

I am not sure why you think that. I suggest you consider:

I likewise suggest you consider that the various classes of automata can accept the same languages:

> //His posts are extremely wordy and nonsensical. If he had a better
> grasp
> of the language, I think he would communicate more succinctly and make
> more sense.//
> I will be more succint from now on.
> // Instead of trying to find better (ie. accurate and succinct)
> vocabulary,
> he just keeps repeating the nonsense.//
> I have counted the word *nonsense* and the adjective *nonsensical* at
> least 6 times in your comments and you blame me being repetitive...
> While I initially believed you meant *nonsense* as a synonym to *no
> making any sense* and that it was due to my lack of english
> proficiency, your hastiness to disqualify anything that does not fit
> your perception of what is and what is not relevant makes this term a
> blackbox term in which you try to put people's comments and intentions.
> Therefore, I would ask you to stop using it as it traduces a lack of
> respect for the efforts I am putting into trying to exchange with you.

I am not sure how else you want me to express that something you write makes no sense. While I understand it will require much more work from you to discover or look up the correct english word for what you are trying to communicate, making up gibberish wastes time while defeating your purpose. Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 20:50:18 CEST

Original text of this message