Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:38:37 GMT
Message-ID: <1dPRg.38582$>

Phil Carmody wrote:

> Chris Smith <> writes:

>>Brian Selzer <> wrote:
>>>There is no fallacy, except in your statement.  Only a fool would accept at 
>>>face value any assertion made by a liar, a lunatic or a buffoon.  The 
>>>introduction of profanity and personal attacks leads one to question the 
>>>motivation, intelligence, and maturity of the speaker.  It is prudent, 
>>>therefore, for one to reevaluate any argument put forth by such a person, 
>>>taking that adolescent behavior into account.

> But did you change your evaluation of the mathematical argument
> I put forward? Did it flip from correct to incorrect just because
> I said "fucking idiot" 6 posts later in the thread. If not, then
> what was achieved by the reevaluation - it sounds completely
> unnecessary?
> Often, except for truly hopeless cases, bluntness catalyses people
> into going back to square one and reevaluating their positions,
> forcing them to justify what they assert, and perhaps do more
> research. Therefore it's a useful tool when they have grave
> misconceptions. It's only used _after_ the process of simply feeding
> facts or corrections to the recipient has been exhausted.
> If one is supposed to read between the lines of Brian's post, he's
> calling me a liar, a lunatic, or a buffoon, and quite explicitly
> stated that my motivation, intelligence, and maturity are questionable.
> Is that not insulting? If so - Brian's resorted to insults, and is
> no better than I. Sauce for the goose, and all that.
>>>You wrote, "There are some sets, such as {0, 1}, where every value between 0 
>>>and 1 (including both endpoints) is minimum."
>>>Unless 0 and 1 belong to some domain other than integers, whole numbers or 
>>>real numbers, it is clear that 0 is the minimum value of the set {0, 1}.  I 
>>>don't know where you came up with the idea that both values are minimum.
>>That statement was made, though, in the context of defining the median.  
>>The definition put forth (I don't recall by whom) is that the median is 
>>the number c such that the sum of the distances of each member of the 
>>set from c is minimized.  In that context, the statement makes sense.  
>>When considering the set {0, 1}, any real number c from zero to one 
>>minimizes the sum of distances of members of the set from from c.
>>Not meant to encourage juvenile behavior, but there was context for that 

> Thank you for remembering the context. I suspect Brian jumped in
> late and hadn't paid attention earlier in the thread.

Nah. Brian is a self-aggrandizing ignorant who showed up in c.d.t a few weeks ago. He likes to make long-winded arguments full of concrete examples while simple statements regarding the essential abstractions sail clear over his head.

I added him to my twit filter weeks ago. Received on Mon Sep 25 2006 - 06:38:37 CDT

Original text of this message