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: 5 Jun 2006 03:25:14 -0700
Message-ID: <1149503114.348482.228570@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> That's not exactly what you stated earlier. Now, I simply note that you
> have claimed here a necessity that is not necessary. If one of your
> axioms is false, any conclusions you derive from it are meaningless.
That's *precisely* what I stated earlier at several occasions. I have always made crystal clear that logical was not to be redefined and that your comment on such subjetc were irrelevant and off topic (not convinced? prove me wrong by showing where I wrote that logical relvar is not multidimensional). As soon as the adressed the right issues, I have not hesitated to point it out as well.

> > //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.
>
> Prove it.

Check DRAM and SDRAM paper about RAM architectures "A Basic
Overview of Commonly Encountered
types of Random Access Memory" By:Peter Haugen Ian Myers Bret Sadler John Whidden"
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/Class/ee/yoder/ece332/Papers/RAM%20Technologies.pdf

Bidimensional adressing scheme are clearly based on ColumnAdress/RowAdress computations of absolute adresses.

>
>
> > //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.
>
> Why would you consider a level below the computational model of the CPU?
> Are you interested in implementing a dbms or in implementing a memory
> management unit? What relevance does OO have below the computational
> model of the CPU?

I have not made any direct link between CPU and memory adressing scheme. I consider that the segmentation you are making is only a consequence of a specific addressing scheme.
>
>
> > // 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.

This is obvious. So?

> >
> > 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.
> > //

Why again do you speak of computational model?

> > Speaking about computational model is irrelevant.
>
> How is the computational model irrelevant to a discussion of physically
> implementing an rdbms? One cannot implement anything without a
> computational model, and your suggestion that OO has anything to offer
> presumably means you think some aspect of the OO computational model
> will help.

I do not have any certitudes about what OO can bring and whether it can or can not bring something. The purpose of this thread is to allow RM people and OO people to bring some insight about such subject. OTOH, why are you convinced OO can not bring anything. Are you saying that DATE has been making pointless assertions in hios books about what OO may bring.

> 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.
>
> Here is perhaps a clue why you seem unable to communicate sensibly: you
> refer to physical storage as physical memory
And it took you a book of explanations to understand that I was talking purely physical.

 and you refer to the image
> on a magnetic disk (DASD) as "in-memory"--assuming you mean the same
> thing by VSAM as other computing professionals would mean. You also seem
> to think that RAM refers to magnetic storage (DASD) given your use of
> the acronym in conjunction with VSAM.

Again the media (be it magnetic, screen or whatever) is irrelevant to the discussion as I am adressing specifically and precisally the adressing scheme implemented in physical memory to compute relative adresses.

> Further, you take the additional bold step of stating the obvious truth
> of things that are false for both the image on disk and the image in memory.

It has nothing bold and exceptional to understand such a simple idea. I just do not get why it seems so unobvious to you.

> > // 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.
>
> I have a better idea why you seem incapable to communicate. I don't have
> much hope that you will improve any time soon, though.
State your ideas clearly. Again in your mouth this really sounds like a compliment.

> > // For good reason. The statements made absolutely no sense even after
> > you
> >
> >>tried to clarify them.//
> >
> > Do you understand better now?
>
> Yes. Now that I know how you personally redefine terms to mean things
> completely different from everybody else, I note that the statements you
> made regarding your axioms were false. Anything you conclude from those
> axioms is meaningless.

Everybody else? If you think that 2 or 3 people on this thread are evrybody you are incorrect once again. Some people did understand the issue I was refering to right away but you ignore them and disqualify them as *fools*.. How practical. And you got some nerve speaking about intellectual honnesty.

You have not established that I do redefine terms and as a proof everytime I was not sure about a specific term I clearly did not use it and asked explanation.
Again these are your conclusions. Given your incoherence I take it as a big compliment.

> > // 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..
>
> I saw that, and I note that J M Davitt responded to those questions much
> the same as everybody else here would. Given the nature of usenet,
> perhaps you had not seen that response yet when you wrote the above.
>
> J M Davitt >>there are implementations where a table's rows and a row's
> columns are "spread out all over the place." This has nothing to do with
> either the relational model or SQL.<<
>
> J M Davitt >>As for "OO in-memory mechanisms," I think that such storage
> schemes should be described a one-dimensional, don't you?. After all,
> each instance is allocated a bunch of bits from a linear address space.<<
>
> In other words, he seems to agree that your basic axioms are false
> assuming your axioms are as they seem to be: 1) that all SQL
> implementations map tables to row stores on disk or in memory, 2) that
> current computational models use something other than linear address spaces.

He did not agree to any of what you are saying: that's your interpretation.

In first response, he just expressed a warning about not confusing logical and physical and refers to what you call as linear aspect of memory. I know have no disagreement with that.

In second response, he expresses a doubtful question as to why I would not consider linear definition as monodimensional.

You are distorting his intensions in order to make a point and you use a mathematical term *axiom* to present the wax of scientific methodology, in order to reinforce your opinion. You have no clue of what are the requirements behind scientific methodology.

> > //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).
>
> It's easy to miss the point when trying to decypher meaning from
> gibberish. Mr. Davitt guessed and got lucky apparently. However, it
> seems he agrees your basic premises are false.

So now it's about luck? You are saying that such complex discussion is subjected to luck for understanding issues? why not telepathy while you are at it?

> > // 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.
>
> I don't put people in a twit-filter for disagreeing with me. I put them
> in there for wasting my time with intellectual dishonesty and/or
> assertive stupidity. While I might miss an extremely rare learning
> opportunity from one of them, I find I learn a lot more by focussing my
> time and effort with more fertile sources of learning opportunities.
How practical. It's just a shame that you can not establish anything to backup you arrogance in pretending to be a knowledgeable source of knowledge which would allow you to judge *stupidity* or a judge of *intellectual honesty*.

> My guess is I will probably be next on your twit filter
> > and your next thread reference as being intellectualy dishonnest.
>
> Citing VSAM, a magnetic storage (DASD) technology, to justify statements
> regarding "in-memory" and RAM certainly borders on intellectual
> dishonesty.

I was refering to VSAM as an media independent reference for adressing scheme and because you believed that bidimensional adressing scheme were still to be invented. My point in using VSAM analogy was to make you understand that bidimensionality and even tridimensionality is at least 40 years old but you keep maitaining that a computational model still needs to be invented.

 However, I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt that
> RAM and "in-memory" might mean entirely different things to you due to
> the language barrier.

I do not need you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I need you to participate in this thread in a more productive and targetted manner. If you can't and you argument gets up to tell to go "fuck myself" then stop right away because I will totally ignore this kind of comments.

> > // 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.
>
> Well, if it makes you feel better to believe that, be my guest.
It is obvious. I have a few of your threads and I know now this is a common behavior in your exchanges with other audiences.

> > 1) *Fool*, 2) *twit filter*, 3) *nonsense* 4) *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.
>
> (numbering added for clarity of reference)
>
> No. That's 1) what I call people who are deficient in judgement, sense
> or understanding, 2) how I avoid wasting time on fools, 3) the name I
> use for words or signs having no intelligible meaning, and 4) how I
> identify people who are a waste of time.
Bla, Bla, Bla....

> This
> > attitude is scary and I do mean that in a friendly manner.
>
> If it were my attitude, your statement would have some relevance. As it
> is... [shrug]
>
>
> > // 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 am not convinced that we are in disagreement on fundamental issues about data management as you seem to have shown some proficiency in unerstanding of Relational issues. I just believe you make hasty conclusions and that you have strong temper.

> > // 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.
>

 Perhaps not now, but certainly in your earlier posts, where I and others
 noted the nonsensical nature of your statements, you were confusing  them--at least in what you wrote if not in what you intended to write. <<This is silly. You change observation and resulting conclusions from statement to statement with each new post. This is incoherence.>>

>
>
> So you use potatoes as an analogy
> > to explain bidimensionality of a relvar. It is totally irrelevant as
> > were your previous comment.
>
> I disagree. I suspect others would consider the analogy relevant. If any
> are still reading, perhaps one or another will voice that opinion.
No comment on that. You wishing somebody will come and help says it all.

> > // 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.
>
> Hence the responses I and others gave when you said it.
>
>
> 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
>
> First, your assertion that the implementations are necessarily
> bidimensional is false. Since that appears to be one of your axioms,
> anything you conclude from it is meaningless.
>
> Second, the computational models in OO use exactly the same kind of
> linear address space.
>
>
> > BUT I have never stated anywhere that a relvar is bidimensional.
>
> I agree. You stated that an SQL table is bidimensional, which is just as
> nonsensical.

False you are distorting the thruth. I said that SQL tables implemented at run time are bidimensional when their adressing scheme of memory is bidimensional. You are confusing logical and physical again and again.

>
> The
> > latest part of the sentence is your interpretation.
>
> And the interpretation of several others here. If you string together
> words that mean A in english, it hardly makes sense for you to blame
> english speaking people for thinking you meant A when you in fact meant B.
I do not blame and thank people here for their patience when they help me express complex issues.

> I suspect you
> > either misunderstood
>
> I understood what you wrote. Apparently, you did not mean what you
> wrote. Since you meant something other than what you wrote, of course, I
> misunderstood what you meant. There is no magic that conveys the correct
> meaning with random words.

Random words do not allow coherence. I have not changed a bit what I am saying since the beginning to you.

> or you are making a confusion between a relvar and
> > its possible in memory representation.
>
> Nope, I understand the difference quite well. I also understand the
> difference between a relvar and its representation on disk or other
> storage. Your assertions regarding in memory representations were
> false--thereby adding to the confusion.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Thank you.
Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 05:25:14 CDT

Original text of this message

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