Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval

kvnkrkptrck_at_gmail.com ha scritto:

> The flaw is simple. Marshall was talking about the binary forms of
> aggregate functions. Count Distinct (a,b) is not the binary form of
> the aggregate Count Distinct (S).
>

kvnkrkptrck_at_gmail.com ha scritto:

> The flaw is simple. Marshall was talking about the binary forms of
> aggregate functions. Count Distinct (a,b) is not the binary form of
> the aggregate Count Distinct (S).
>
>

This is crap. So you mean if I have 2 records your equivalence does not hold and if I have more than that it holds? If this were true we still say that does not hold. If the property does not hold for any n, it simply does not hold.

Ah. You guys prove that you are unable to do scientific talk.

How can you talk about data management if you are missing the most basic way to discuss formally.

Again. Please take from my proof the line(s) which you believe it's wrong and make a concise but clear *proof * that it is. This is would be a scientific approach.

I started from the binary definition and gave precise statement (even numbered the lines).

As I have taken the time to give a math proof that there is no equivalence between the concept of "idempotence" and "duplication insensitivity".
I may be right or wrong, but you should do the same, otherwise you are just a poor fool.

If you do not do that or you are not able to do that, you have just proved what you are.

Be serious and talk math / logic , please.

-P Received on Tue Sep 19 2006 - 00:15:30 CEST