Re: Fraud Number 3: U-Gene

Cimode wrote:
> 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??
>

Now, I did read this thread, and I really like to sort this out. Can you describe, without any bluster or invective, what is meant to you by the terms "relvar", "relation" and "relvalue" ? You said that "I am more a follower of the FP, McGoveran approach who advocate a tighter commitment to terminilogy (sic) ..." (16th June, 2:27pm). Since you then went on to say that a relation is both the variable and a value (I think : what you said was "A relation is BOTH a relvar which represent the abstract structure of the relvar and the relvalues which represents its matter at a specific point in time.") I'd like an explicit description of your view of these three terms, because, like others on this thread I've so far taken the CJ Date line on this (even if it can lead to overly structural thinking about relations). If it's in one of Fabian Pascal's papers, by all means note which one and I'll spend the $10 to read it.

In addition to that, I think U-gene isn't a native English speaker either (I think he's Russian ?), so given that a non-native speaker is arguing with another non-native speaker, the potential for confusion multiplies. Received on Sun Jun 18 2006 - 00:07:38 CEST