Fraud Number 3: U-Gene
Date: 17 Jun 2006 13:06:54 -0700
Message-ID: <1150574814.211051.311310_at_g10g2000cwb.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
U-Gene
//Two relations (relvalues) exists. These relations have different
headers (schemas). Are these relvalues the values of different types?
OK this one's funny...and presents so many confusions I can't count...
This ignorant trully believes that relations = relvalues and asks whether these values have different types thanks to the previous assumption if the relation have different schemas??
SO I tried pointing that out to him...
//Me//
Your question is confusing...
when you ask ...
<<Two relations (relvalues) exists. These relations have different
headers (schemas). Are these relvalues the values of different types?
The tenure of your question seems to indicate you confuse a relvar and its projection as a table....These are 2 different concepts...
..relvars do not have header..header is associated to a projection as a
human need for interpretation. only the body of the table represents a
projection of a relvar...
a relvar can define a type only if it has set of operators associated
to it...(see data type definitions). In case the operators and other
data type prereq are defined... 2 different relvars are necessarily are
possibly defining 2 separate types.
BUT as usual, ignorants persist and sign (always funny seeing them being so sure;))
//U-Gene//
Do you understand the differense between relvalues (I asked about) and
relvar(iables) ? --> This ignorant actually truly believes he can
educate me
//Me// --> gave some extra shot to help him make some sense out of
it...Using sound proofs...I demonstrated his nonsense just
demonstrating the consequence if==of confusing relvalue and
relations...
Given the level of confusion your question implies, I do not believe you are not a position to test my knowledge of difference between relvar and relvalue...
While I had a doubt you meant *relvar* for *relavlue* as a TYPO which would have has sense, I now clearly see you have no clue about what a relation is...Confusing a relvalue, a relation and its projection as table...
Here's the proof...
You state...
<<Two relations (relvalues) exists.>>
Your question implies relations = relvalues...which if I follow this
false premise reasonning would lead to relations that have similar
relvalues being equal which is totally false...2 relvar with same
relvalues are NOT necessarily equal.
<<These relations have different
headers (schemas). Are these relvalues the values of different >>
This question is totally irrelevant if you consider a relation as being
equal to a relvalue...
I rest my case...and let people judge from themselves.... Received on Sat Jun 17 2006 - 22:06:54 CEST