Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt
As BB's idiots keep diverting debate to my person, instead of adressing
RM issues I pointed out...I will begin quoting some of their posts to
demonstrate their incoherence, ignorance or both...I will let the
people judge for themselves...
> This isn't really much of a stretch: For example, two scalar type
> variables must be of the same type if we wish to do arithmetic with
> them. Limiting ourselves to integers for this discussion, both scalar
> variable types must hold data of integer types.
//Me// -->
What a stupid idiotic statement!!!
So basically what you say is that it is not possible to add a value drawn from a sub domain1 of integers defining type1 to some other value
drawn from sub domain2 of integers defining type2....? Or do you
consider type1 = type2 no matter what?
Here is the proof that you have no clue about RM and mathematical
domain concepts....They are essential to understand RM...
--> As you can see, this ignorant states that arithmetic operation on integers can be done if and only if the variables are of one possible type integer...
--> BUT he persists and signs...Adding more ignorance and bringing in supertype and subtype concepts...(probably to ellude the question) which have nothing to do with relvar type...
//Me//
it's a matter that you wrote a totally false statement stating that 2
scalar types MUST be of same type to allow arithmetic operations
between them adn I prove you wrong with sound reasonning...You are just
to proud or to idotic to recognize it...
//JM Davitt//
> I really don't want to get into sub types and super types and whether
> operations defined on rationals work on integers.
//Me//
subtypes and supertype have NOTHING to do with the basic definition of
a relation type...
//JM Davitt//
> to use words like "promotion" or "implicit conversions" because they
> would either add confusion or require elucidation.
//Me//
Here another proof of your confusion...."implicit conversion" they are
totally related to the implementation layer of SQL and are NOTHING in
RM...
Received on Sat Jun 17 2006 - 14:50:17 CDT