Fraud Number 4: Bob Badour
Date: 17 Jun 2006 14:15:15 -0700
This one seemed right at first...But finally an ignorant
BB doing mathematics...
> Non sequitur does not require a false premise. Sound logical derivations
> require valid logic and true axioms. However, one can create a non
> sequitur without any axioms or logic at all:
> Lupins grow in my ditch, therefore one should always wear a seatbelt
> when driving an orange convertible backward.
> Memory management units map linear address spaces onto linear memories
> therefore logical structures in computers are bidimensional.
> 'Twas brillig therefore the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Don't express yourself about mathematics when you don't understand a thing about it...You have redefined in 2 lines the meaning of Axiom as it was defined from Antiques times till now...
There is no such thing as a *true* or *false* axiom.... Axiom is an *admitted* fact that is reasonable to accept to allow emitting of hypothesis that you demonstrate logically to establish theorems exclusively based on the initial axiom. In a word you admit Axiom period then you use Axioms to demonstrate Theorems after they were hypothesis. At no point an Axiom is not a boolean...Your misunderstanding of what axiom makes the rest of your post pure idiotic
BB doing logic (I spare you the insults part not as interresting as the following)
(He get pissed when I disagreed with his statement that SQL Table were multidimensional
at physical inmemory (RAM) physical level...He gest pissed tells me to go *fuck myself*...
Told about a hundred times this fraud that memory physical projections in RAM can only be bidimensional or tridmensional because of current RAM adressing schemes at memory controller level...He persists and signs it's multidimensional....claiming I need to reinvent a computational model to support my claims...
STILL WAITING FOR HIS RESPONSE TO THIS POST Just read and enjoy...
I know BB won't probably read this thread as he probably used his magical *twit filter* to discard my post but I want to point out out the issue of his misunderstanding and bad faith on this thread.
The object of the argument was that I considered physical representation of SQL table on all current implementation as purely bidimensional or tridimensional depending on the adressing scheme used at physical level of RAM implementation. Mister BB has advocated the opposite stating that physical implementation are multidimensional and that stated that RAM adresses are linear.
I state that BB is wrong in saying RAM SQL tables representations are multidimensional...
A multidimensional physical representation of a N dimension relvar supposes it can be represented through an N-ary coordinate system equivalent at physical level. Otherly said, any SQL datum location on that physical memory should have then an N-ary system of coordinates to
locate it in RAM.
Such system does not exist. Most RAM architectures memory is addressed
with a 32-bit address (or 36-bit if PAE is enabled). But those addresses are translated by the memory controller to a physical address
that identifies which bank, row, and column the memory actually resides
in. In latest Dual Core Opteron CPU's the memory controller has been directly integrated into the CPU which allows direct physical referencing without need of translation and took away the need for using linear adressing.
That proves 2 things:
> When stating that RAM is linear, BB has proved that he
a physical memory architecture is. He proved he does not make a difference between a logical linear adressing scheme at CPU level and a
physical adressing scheme at RAM (memory controller). I clearly pointed out this confusion to him and he chose to persist.
> To be considered multidimensional at physical level a SQL
should have all the datum embodying it located through an N-ary physical adressing scheme as opposed to a trinary system.
For instance, considering the following SQL Table
Datum1, Datum2, Datum3, Datum4 Datum5, Datum6, Datum7, Datum8 Datum9, Datum10, Datum11, Datum12
In a multidimensional physical RAM, it should be possible to represent and locate it at least through N physical coordinates.
--> MEMORY CONTROLER
locates Datum1 at (A1, A2, A3, A4...A-N) locates Datum2 at (A1, A6, A7, A4...A-N) locates Datum3 at (A1, A2, A3, A4...A-N)and so forth....
Needless to such a physical RAM system does not exist. Therefore, it proves SQL Table is NOT multidimensional at physical level. Its representation and handling is necessarily determined by the RAM adressing scheme used by the memory controler.
To make sure I was not missing anything which could have proved me wrong I have re-read the thread and even checked BB link to try to understand his point of view. It was a pure waste of time as any of the reading done has been relevant to subject treated.
Considering the following:
> BB claimed that I insulted people without proving it. He used this occasion to tell me "go fuck myself". As a response, I have stated that I would only respond to his non insulting posts.
> By respect, I have clearly provided responses to all questions brought by the so-called *educator(s)*. The opposite is not true.
> I have pointed out to at several occasions the level of confusion at BB and demonstrated through logical argumentation. His only response was insults and irrelevant comments.
I consider that unless he acknowledges he was wrong, which I strongly doubt, or proves me wrong responding to this question, he just has lost all credibility I was willing to give him. Listenning. Probable answers: Received on Sat Jun 17 2006 - 23:15:15 CEST