Re: Proposal: 6NF

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161428966.079760.214590_at_m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> >> >As far as I can see his worst crime is that he overestimates his
>> >> >expertise in certain areas and is somewhat reluctant in admitting
>> >> >that
>> >> >other points of view might also be valid. Certain newsgroups would
>> >> >become very empty if you would remove all participants with that
>> >> >attitude. ;-)
>> >> True, but that sounds like a good idea.
> How practical...Frauds that get exposed don't won't people who expose
> them...
> That's called censorship...
>
>
>> >As ever it seems to be just a slight ambiguity in definition, combined
>> >with a lot of bluster like cimode's name calling. I mean clearly
>> >neither jan nor vc are 'idiots' - far, far from it, so why there is a
>> >need to post such things I have no idea. I for one, am all for more
>> >decorum. Posters have enough trouble communicating as it is.
> I have to admit that online communication does not help. You an Jan
> Hidders still remain idiots.
>
>> Exactly. There are many threads that I might well have been able
>> to follow were there a bit more information. A polite question in the
>> middle of such boorishness does not get too far.
> Oh poor boy...What pollutes this board overall is the incredible amount
> of stupidity, misinformation and ignorance, people like you and Jan
> hidders are pouring in it. vc has made clear points that only you and
> Jan Hidders have not understood right away...
>
> It has taken tons of patience of his to establish that you were not
> talking about the same concepts. The only difference is that he
> immediately understood what you were talking but reciprocity was not
> true...To make it brief, he did get it and you did not ..What a
> surprise..Moron...
>

Since it is clearly possible to divide and subtract some pairs of natural numbers such that the result is a natural number, what do you call those relationships? Magic? Why is it said that N is not closed under subtraction and that Z is not closed under division if those binary operations, division and subtraction, are not conceptual relationships that transcend the definition of any single numeric domain? Or conversely, why is the operator "+" called addition in each of N, Z, Q, R and C? Is it true that if a number belongs to N it cannot also belong to R? Isn't the integer 5 equivalent to the rational number 5/1? Can you not add an integer to a rational number? How about a real number to a complex number? If not, then what does the "+" mean in the complex number, 5 + 3i? Is 5 + 0i + 0 + 3i meaningless?

The thing I consider moronic is supporting an argument by using a definition for a "value" that is clearly circular, that is, a value must be the output of a function. Is the input of that function, then, NOT a value? Are the elements of a set NOT values unless there is a function defined that ranges over that set? Received on Sat Oct 21 2006 - 18:23:28 CEST