Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

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

Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 17 Jun 2006 12:50:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1150573816.970940.99560@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>


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...



BEGIN

//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...

//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

Original text of this message

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