Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Fraud Number Null:

Re: Fraud Number Null:

From: Cimode <>
Date: 21 Jun 2006 01:33:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour wrote:
> : "I state that BB is wrong in saying RAM SQL tables representations are
> multidimensional..."
> BB replies: The SQL table is multidimensional--or more correctly has a
> number of dimensions equal to its degree--no matter the medium in which
> one represents it: in a linear memory, written in chalk on a two
> dimensional blackboard, suspended in a cube of glass. The dimensions of
> the medium have absolutely no effect on the dimensions of the logical
> entity.

Then BB is wrong again and again.
Here is the BB's logic

1) SQL Logical Table are multidimensional
2) SQL Physical Tables are SQL Logical Tables
3) SQL Physical Tables are multidimensional

Problem: SQL Physical representation of Tables is bidimensional/ tridimensional/ based on all informations provided. Therefore point number 2 is wrong. Therefore BB is wrong.

> Which brings us to the all-important question: How many SQL tables can
> fit on the head of a pin? Or is that in a pinhead? I forget.

> BB states: "Non sequitur does not require a false premise. Sound logical
> derivations require valid logic and true axioms."
> replies: "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... "
> BB rebutts: I used premise and axiom synonymously as a statement
> presumed true. I fail to see how I redefined the meaning of either by
> doing so.

Then you are wrong again and ignore the meaning of Axiom. premise is not axiom. premise is one possible form proposal for Axiom. Premise is boolean. But Axiom is not.

> I contrasted valid logical derivations or conclusions with sound logical
> derivations or conclusions. The primary context of the terms valid and
> sound are in logical arguments or propositional logic.
> Thus, consider the following logical argument:
> 1. If Bob is credible and wrong, he admits he is wrong.
> 2. I have proved Bob wrong.
> 3. Bob has remained silent.

> Therefore, Bob is not credible.

Bob is diverting again discussion on his person in a simplyistic manner.

The non diverted point is

> 1. BB thinks that SQL Tables representation in RAM are multidimensional
> 2. Cimode states that SQL Tables projected PHYSICALLY can not be otherwise than bidimensionnally or tridimensionally in current physical RAM implementations. He proves it with supporting evidence on memory architecture.
> 3 BB thinks that RAM adressing schemes are linear. Cimode proves BB's wrong.
> 4 BB supports Cimode is wrong. Therefore he states Physical SQL Tables projection is multidimensional but brings no evidence. BB insults Cimode.
> 5. BB confuses SQL Logical Tables representation and SQL Physical Tables representation. BB is not credible.
> 6 BB remains silent.
> 7 BB has no proof or evidence to prove SQL Physical Table projection are NOT bidimensional or tridimensional.
> 8 BB can not admit he 's wrong.

> The above argument is a valid logical argument; however, it is not a
> sound logical argument. If Bob has remained silent, he has not admitted
> he is wrong. By modus tollens, therefore, the statement that Bob is
> credible and wrong is false. But we know Bob is wrong therefore the only
> way the statement "Bob is credible and wrong" can be false is if the
> statement "Bob is credible" is false. All of that is perfectly valid.
Diverting discussion on alternative debate is a habit with BB. *credible* is irrelevant to RM debating.

> However, the argument is not sound. The argument relies on three
> premises or axioms. As it happens, all three of the axioms are false.
> Premise #1 is false. For instance, if Bob has twit-filtered some
> self-aggrandizing ignorant or similar crank, Bob sees nothing at all to
> respond to. Thus, his silence in this case merely reflects the worth Bob
> ascribes to the person ignored ie. at best no worth at all.
BB hides behind excuses.

> Premise #2 is false. While I am sure the crank genuinely believes he has
> demonstrated that Bob is wrong, only the crank himself (or perhaps
> another crank) imagines such a thing.

Remains the question. *crank* is irrelevant to the discussion.
> Premise #3 was true until now.

A habit of BB: irrelevance.

> One could forgive the poor reader at this point for wondering: "What the
> hell does any of this have to do with databases or their theory?!?"
> However, it has everything to do with them.
> We use dbmses so that we can draw correct inferences from the data we
> own. To draw correct inferences, the data must be correct and the
> manipulation of the data must be correct.
> It doesn't matter how valid the manipulations are if the data are wrong.
> It doesn't matter how accurate the data are if the manipulations are
> invalid.
> This point pops up again and again. For instance, many newbies, cranks
> and self-aggrandizing ignorants focus on structure to the exclusion of
> integrity and manipulation. This is a mistake that one can easily
> forgive newbies for making.
> Defects like null and duplication affect the validity of results.
> Integrity can only prevent unreasonably wrong data from getting into a
> database. Whether the data are right depends on whether they accurately
> reflect what we intend them to reflect from the real world.
> See point #3 at
BB proves once again confusion between physical and logical layers. BB brings arguments exclusively at logical level (normalization, integrity issues). Cimode states logical level is not relevant for the discussion on physical representation and that logical definitions are not to be used as an argument. BB was proven wrong on several points about physical information on memory controller. BB has no credibility until proving his point. Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 03:33:08 CDT

Original text of this message