Re: A good book

Chris Smith wrote:

> Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>It's not a difficult request. You are just too ignorant and too arrogant 
>>to quietly accept the correct answer.

They are the same thing. If you were better educated and perhaps a little smarter, you would already know that. Given that you claim to be an educator, your astounding ignorance reeks of malpractice.

When you read Dijkstra's writings and he points out that applied mathematics has contributed more to pure mathematics in recent years than vice versa, stop and consider what he is saying. Stop and consider that Codd's 1972 paper establishes the equivalence of set algebra and predicate calculus thereby bringing together two major fields of pure mathematic study from the previous century.

   I already know enough database blowhards. I don't know
> whether you're a database blowhard or not -- Marshall seems to respect
> you, which says a lot -- but that's definitely database blowhard
> territory, and others' opinions can only last for so long before they
> are replaced by personal experience.
>
> I do actually know the above rhetorical device quite well. It's a
> slippery little device you can use nearly with impunity. Its primary
> purpose is to allow database blowhards to feel superior by pretending
> that everyone else just lacks rigor or mathematical understanding. The
> trick is that the word "relation" occurs both in the mathematical theory
> of relations and also in "relational database".

You might raise your effective IQ by an entire standard deviation just by acknowledging it's no coincidence that the term occurs in both. After all, it means exactly the same thing in both the pure field and the applied field. Similarly, terms like 'force', 'potential', 'moment', 'charge', 'mass', 'velocity' mean exactly the same thing in physics as they do in engineering. Idiot.

   It must be used
> carefully, of course, for if it's brought to the surface, everyone
> really knows that mathematicians studied relations for many, many years
> before there were databases; but if held just below the consciousness,
> it is quite effective indeed. Ah yes, I know it well.

Intelligent, educated people will recognize the equivalence and be entirely conscious of the fact that 'relation' in pure mathematics and 'relation' in applied mathematics are the same thing. That you are relatively stupid is an observable fact. I have no particular feeling about the observation.

> That said, clearly the innovations by real researchers in the field have
> been very helpful. I'd like to find out more about their work, and even
> blowhards (or their imitators, as the case may be) can be occasionally
> useful. Five levels deep in this thread, you finally mentioned Codd's
> paper, which I was then able to find, in addition to the first couple
> books. Whew. It just required a little over a day of listening to you
> answer everything in the world except where to find good information on
> relational theory, including trying to ask me to read through thousands
> of pages of writing by Dijkstra, who never gave more than a passing
> mention to relational databases at all!

Your .sig claims you are an educator of sorts. And your original request acknowledged "the existence of a simple formal mathematical model behind relational databases." Any competent educator--even a vocational trainer--needs to either educate their students on that formal model or assume their students have sufficient education to already know it. That you are entirely ignorant of it and apparently have no expectation that your students have a clue either speaks volumes about the quality of education in our field.

You originally appeared to request a single book that would convince you of the benefits of declarative languages. I tried to deliver on that request. Had you asked for papers that established the theoretical foundation of the relational model, the equivalences of predicate calculus and an example of an important application of the theory, I would have immediately cited Codd 1970, Codd 1972 and Ron Fagin's papers from the late 1970's. (Ron Fagin is another prolific and important contributor to our field. His papers provide a wealth of intellectual treasure: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/fagin/papers.html )

Please forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and for trying to deliver what you requested. My mind-reading abilities are somewhat lacking. I apologize that it took five levels to plumb the depths of your ignorance.

> Why the persistence, though? It turns out that it's because you're
> insulting and condescending, and I've yet to master the art of figuring
> out when to just ignore insulting and condescending people. I will
> attempt to avoid that mistake in the future... but no promises!

Let me offer another hypothesis: you lack the competence to recognize your incompetence. Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 15:39:18 CEST