Re: Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt

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