Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 22 Oct 2006 02:48:14 -0700
Message-ID: <1161510494.023368.205890_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>


Brian Selzer wrote:
> "Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Another dodge. You're very good at that.
Not a dodge (for whatever that is). Such questions demonstrate only one thing. Your level of math is just low to realize how the question are.

> Been there, but in their discussion of domains and codomains, they speak of
> input values and output values, so again, if a value is the output of a
> function, and a function is defined as a mapping between a set of input
> values and a set of output values, then clearly the definition is circular.
> If you can't see that, then perhaps you should go back to school.
It seems you have not learned anything...

Then you must have a better definition of value. You are ready to put in doubt one of the best established definition in science under the *feeling* that it seems circular. Bring demonstrations; axioms, theorems or shut the hell up...

> > Besides, the fact of being by definition the output of some kind of
> > transformation does not prevent it from being the input of another
> > function.... DUHHHHHH!!
> >
> > If value B is defined as F(A) = B nothing prevents it from being an
> > input for another function, say V that produces C and inputing...In
> > such case, V(B) = C and therefore V(F(A)) = C
> >
> > There's nothing circular about that dumb ass, except in your confused
> > mind....
> >
>
> So, if value B is defined as F(A) = B, then what is A? Is it a value? If
> it's a value, then it must also be the output of a function, and so on...and
> so on...and so on: either the chain of compositions is infinite (which is
> quite ridiculous) or the definition is circular. DUHHHHH!!
Of course math is the science of infinite transformation. You are just to dum to realize that a definition can not be circular (for whatever that may mean). Besides *circular* mean getting to the same point. In what sense, defining A as an output for transformation G and input for transformation F makes it circular : you are using 2 separate transformations. It would be circular if it would be both input and output of the same function... JeeeZ I feel I a talking to a retard.... Received on Sun Oct 22 2006 - 11:48:14 CEST

Original text of this message