# Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt

Date: 17 Jun 2006 12:50:17 -0700

Message-ID: <1150573816.970940.99560_at_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 - 21:50:17 CEST