Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

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: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:32:31 GMT
Message-ID: <j4Kgg.17618$>

Cimode wrote:

> I will be more succint in future comments as wordyness seems to be
> asource of confusion.
> Bob Badour wrote:

>>Cimode wrote:
>>>To Bob Badour
>>>As a proof of good faith that I am not trying to ellide your questions.
>>> I will change the quoting. Hope this will clarify...
>>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>><<What are the two dimensions? Can you name them?>>
>>>For bidimensional RAM's, the 2 dimensions are RowAddress and
>>>For tridimensional RAM's (64bit architectures) the 3 dimensions are
>>>Block Adress, RowAddress, ColumnAddress
>>>Does that make sense? It was written above.
>>It doesn't make sense yet. First, you will have to define: "RowAddress",
>>"ColumnAddress" and "BlockAddress" as part of some coherent
>>computational model.
> It does not makes *yet*?.  Mister, what is nonsense does not make sense
> *ever*.

I don't recall saying that the above is nonsense. I recall saying it cannot make sense until you define the terms "RowAddress", "ColumnAddress" and "BlockAddress". Until that time, it is merely meaningless.

> Besides when was the last time you checked memory architectures?

I suggest you consider the name of this newsgroup. It is not and it is not

If you want to discuss a specific computational model, you will have to provide some sensible definition of that model. Even with segmented memory, the address space is linear. Even with virtual memory, the address space is linear. Even with paged memory, the address space is linear.

Are you suggesting that current memory architectures are non-segmented, non-virtual, non-paged, non-linear architectures? Are you suggesting that this would somehow become relevant to the theoretical computational model?

While you initially seemed to show some promise, you are beginning to convince me you are nothing but a crank after all.

  Current 64 bit memory architectures already support this > adressing scheme without the need to inventing a computational model > (For whatever it maybe). What do you call *linear*

I call a 1-manifold "linear". What do you call linear? What do you call "bidimensional" ? (Other than some imagined implementation of an SQL table, that is.)

In a computational model, I call any addressing scheme requiring single pointers "linear". On a CPU, I call any address bus consisting of a fixed number of external pins representing the state of some CPU register "linear".

>>Obviously, you are trying to define some computational model for the
>>physical implementation of a dbms. You apparently want to discard the
>>linear memory addressing scheme used on almost all computer
>>architectures for a different addressing scheme.
>>Once you completely define the computational model, what you say might
>>make sense. Until then, you are just using meaningless terms.
>>Apparently, in your addressing scheme, one may not access memory through
>>a single pointer. Instead, one must use three pointers.

> This comment is the most Interesting you have posted so far.  What is
> linear to you?

See above. What is linear to you? What is bidimensional? What computational model do you want to discuss? What property of that computational model do you think an OO computational model might improve? Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 18:32:31 CDT

Original text of this message