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: 15 Jun 2006 05:45:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1150375517.366180.277980@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>


You believe my point is to prove that memory model redefines logical model while I stated that it restricts its implementation. It is not the same thing!!.

Unless you can prove that memory model does in fact implement *physically* multidimensionality (mathematically speaking not a logical standpoint). I respectfully believe you are making the confusion.

Cimode wrote:
> Jay Dee wrote:
> > Cimode wrote:
> > > I know BB won't probably read this thread as he probably used his
> > > magical *twit filter* to discard my post but I want to point out
> > > the issue of his misunderstanding and bad faith on this thread.
> > >
> > > The object of the argument was that I considered physical
> > > representation of SQL table on all current implementation as purely
> > > bidimensional or tridimensional depending on the adressing scheme used
> > > at physical level of RAM implementation. Mister BB has advocated
> > > the opposite stating that physical implementation are multidimensional
> > > and that stated that RAM adresses are linear.
> >
> > Dimension, when discussing databases and memory, is two
> > different words.
> Yes. Abolutely I am aware of that. Dimension at logical level is not
> the same as dimension at mathematical level we agree on that. I am
> exclusively refering at the second to consider physical aspects of
> memory. That is why debate at logical level is totally irrelevant. I
> refer to N dimension as being refered by an N system of coordinates.
>
> > Suggesting that the memory model of the machine on which
> > a system is implemented affects the arity of the data in
> > a database indicates confusion of the different meanings
> > the word has.
> I believe there's confusion but not where you think. I have clearly
> defined dimension as not being refering to logical definition. We are
> *exclusively* at physical level.
>
> Reread the thread please. I state that the memory model that regulates
> the RAM system at physical level limits the implementation of
> multidimensionality as is defined at logical level. I have not said
> that it would redefine the muldimensionality at logical level, that
> would be absurd. We all know a relvar is a purely multidimensional
> variable. But I stated and proved the current physical implementation
> do not allow to represent that multidimensionality....
Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 07:45:17 CDT

Original text of this message

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