Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt

Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt

From: Cimode <>
Date: 17 Jun 2006 12:50:17 -0700
Message-ID: <>

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...


//JM Davitt// reponds to a post made where he gives his exposes his ignorance of relvar type concept...

> 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...

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.

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.

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

Original text of this message