Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: terminology

Re: terminology

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 18 Jun 2006 15:29:33 -0700
Message-ID: <1150669773.813774.97590@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> > > Most basically, a relation is a subset of a product of
> > > sets.
> >
> > What the hell is a product of sets? sets of what? product
> > is exclusively an arithmetic operation. Which one are
> > refering to?
>
> Impressive, this idiot has never heard of Cartesian product
> it seems. Nor I guess any of the many other non-arithmetic
> notions of product. Well, maybe it was another Commode
> language barrier moment.

I was asking a question to make sure I understand where Marshall was getting at...It's called communication...

non-arithmetic notions of product? All right then...So you are referring to algebric Cartesian products? What kind of other non arithmetics are you refering to to define RM concepts.

Now explain how algebric Cartesian products allow to state the following equivalent to Marshall's definition "a relation is a subset of a product of sets"

"a relation is a Cartesian product of sets" ? (I would like to hear that from you personally!)

> > What allows to qualify a relation as a subset of the
> > exclusive output arithmetics operations?
>
> He isn't talking about arithmetic, moron.
So *arithmetic* is the magical word...You keep repeating yourself.

> > As an analogy, do you define a recipient according to its
> > content? Do you define a glass of water according to
> > water...Both are totally independent. Water is H2O and
> > glass of water is mainly Carbon
> LMAO. With that and your "product" foolishness, you have set
> back your /crusade/ to "prove" you are smart by at least a
> year or so. First, an English lesson for you. It's "carbon"
I do not *need* to prove anything (and certainly not to you)....Observing your insults and epidermic response is sufficient to establish my point.

I refered to Carbon as an atomic element in Mendeivev's chart, as opposed to H20 formula...I could have written C but for communication purpose and who knows, mentally impaired, I have to be more specific. DUHHH!!!
> not "Carbon". More importantly, neither water nor glass is
> "mainly" carbon, moron, by any definition of "mainly".
Your cognitive abilities seem so impaired that you just can't make any sense of a simple sentence...

I was referring ONLY to the glass part not the water part which mainly is carbon and sillicium based compounds...To make it simple for ignorants, most minerals are carbon and sillicium based compounds...(did you know that diamond is pure Carbon and not pure carbon you moronic ignorant)

>You stepped into chemistry and blew your foot off, idiot.
No need to set into chemistry, it's called general culture. Something you obviously totally lack...It's funny how ignorants need to put a field name on every knowledge they do not master to be able to brag about it, just to be able to say...

"Well you know it's just not MY Area of Expertise!!!"

Oh and BTW you have just been added to the Fraud Exposure Wall

> -- Keith --
Received on Sun Jun 18 2006 - 17:29:33 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US