Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 4 Jun 2006 14:47:55 -0700
Message-ID: <1149457675.628446.8410@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Bob Badour wrote:
//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.// Your statement is incorrect. I explained the use of bidimensionality to state that the physical representation of a relvar (in current SQL implementation) is necessarily bidimensional at run time. Tell me where I have declared that it's bidimensional a logical level?

//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.//
It is not a claim it's a fact. 64 bit RAM architectures use an adressing scheme identifying adresses through 3 coordinates BlockAddress/ColumnAddress/RowAddress. Which makes your *recalling* essentially irrelevant.

//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.// This is high level segmentation is irrelevant. I am speaking low level.

// 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.

 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.
//
Speaking about computational model is irrelevant. Your comment made me however understand where the misunderstanding comes from. You are ignoring the relative nature of hexadecimal adress retrieval. Most addresses are computed and are a result of a absolute direct extraction. Current RAM use 2 or 3 coordinates to identify faster addresses on relatively to the other. The adressing scheme is referential for computing that has been existing since VSAM. If you suppose Linear means monodimensional and that adresses are extracted directly, you are wrong.

// 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.// No need to comment on that see response above.

Wont comment on the rest no need.

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

Do you understand better now?

// 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.// Here's to refresh your selective memory.

JMDavitt first asked a question to warn me I was not communicating clearly enough but he adressed directly the issue I was getting at.

//Clarification please: are you saying that direct image implementations
are two dimensional because all the columns are adjacent to each other in a row? (If so, you're writing a very different language than the readers of your posts are reading.) //

I responded commenting onto adjacency and asking new questions to try to direct a more productive discussion..

//Not only and the fact that they are adjacent is not really the issue but this description seems closer to what I mean. Thank you very much for helping a better formulation of the issue. (I may have troubles expressing the concept). This thread seems to be taking off after all.

 What is your insight on that.? Can OO in-memory mechanisms be helpful on that matter? Most people here seem to believe the opposite. //

JMDavitt did not explicitely express that he had a comprehension of issues at hand he just aked the right question about a subject with delimited scope which makes the triggering argument having sense. This is why I told you at several occasions that you miss the point (in all respect).

// 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.//
I do not know any people accustomed to this board and I do not have any preconceived idea about what they are or say. I just try to exchange with sincerity and respect. Alvin or you are no exceptions. I conceive that disagreeing with them on a specific matter as being an potential opportunity to learn something. This process may not be as practical as puting people on twit filter when they disagree with me but it is rewarding. My guess is I will probably be next on your twit filter and your next thread reference as being intellectualy dishonnest.

// 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.// You are trying to establish nonsense on false assumptions and if necessary you disqualify as *foolish* or *nonsensical* anything that does not fit your perception of right and wrong.

*Fool*, *twit filter*, *nonsense* *lack of intellectual honnesty* --> Is that your witchhunt arsenal to defend your positions when people disagree with you and when you can not prove they are wrong. This attitude is scary and I do mean that in a friendly manner.

// 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.// Sorry about that but I can not give more clarifications than I already did to prove my good faith.

// 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.//
I am not confusing anything you are. So you use potatoes as an analogy to explain bidimensionality of a relvar. It is totally irrelevant as were your previous comment.

// 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.//
No that would be totally silly. These are conclusions you are making I stated that the SQL *physical* implementation on *current* DBMS systems in necessarily bidimensional at run time because of the addressing scheme used is a limiting factor to better representation BUT I have never stated anywhere that a relvar is bidimensional. The latest part of the sentence is your interpretation. I suspect you either misunderstood or you are making a confusion between a relvar and its possible in memory representation.

I know you are trying to help but it seems to me you are

<< You and I obviously use different definitions for "clearly". You clearly
 and repeatedly used "bidimensionality" in reference to an SQL table.>> This statement is incorrect. At several occasions, I explicitely refered to current *physical* implementations of SQL Tables in main commercial products I named (ORACLE, DB2, SQL Server). A SQL table can not be logically bidimensional.

// 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.// Yes and I am grateful for that. Thank you for your help.

// 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.// That's your opinion. I will keep it in mind.

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Multi-tape_machines
>
> I likewise suggest you consider that the various classes of automata can
> accept the same languages:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory#Classes_of_automata
>
>
> > //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 - 16:47:55 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US