# Re: Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt

Date: 17 Jun 2006 13:07:53 -0700

Message-ID: <1150574873.655417.12940_at_r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Still waiting for his response...He just ran away like chicken...

Cimode wrote:

> 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 - 22:07:53 CEST