Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 22 Oct 2006 11:43:38 -0700
Message-ID: <1161542618.503192.263750_at_b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>


Brian Selzer wrote:

> > 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...
> >
>
> There is a clear difference between *the* value (of a function) and *a*
> value. One cannot exist independent from the function for which it is an
> output, the other can exist independent of any function, mapping or
> transformation, for example, as the instance of a variable. You appear to
> be confusing the two mathematical senses of the word. I think that was
> spelled out in the wikipedia article you directed me to. Perhaps you should
> read the entire article.
So now I am confusing mathematical senses....

I pointed out the first link available but classical definition of value being the output of transformation is universally recognized in mathematics...

Is these your demonstrations, theorems to establish a new definition of value?

Cut the fucking crap and have the honnesty to recognize your error...*the*? *a*? What the hell does etymology and adjective has to do with math? Now you play words because you don't have the intellectual honnesty to recognize your mistake...value is mathematically defined as the output of a transformation...Period. Stop jerking off !!

*instance of a variable* is not a mathematical concept but a computing concept. Besides variables are just transformation placeholders nothing less nothing more...They do not represent a defining concept...Moron!!

> > 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....
> >
>
> Hello, McFly! Isn't a definition circular if any of its components'
> definitions invoke it?
.No it' is not you dumb ass. The fact that a value may be used as both an input and output for separate function is one case out of an infinity....

Besides a charactericts observed does not say anything about definitions...What does the hell mean a *circular definition* anyway(you d have used recursive you moron!). You can't even define it and still you persist and sign to state that it qualifies an established definition unversally recognized? Go play mental masturbation with misinformed asses like you...

[Extra bulshit snipped] Received on Sun Oct 22 2006 - 20:43:38 CEST

Original text of this message