Re: Proposal: 6NF

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news: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...
>

Indeed. /The value/ of a transformation is the output of that transformation. You appear to be saying that absent a transformation, a number is not a value.

> 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 !!
>

I guess it's time for a grammar lesson. "a" and "the" are articles. "a" is indefinite, whereas "the" is definite. If you really don't understand the difference, then perhaps you should go back to grammar school.

> *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!!
>

So, what's a function argument? What's a free variable? What's a bound variable? Are those not mathematical concepts? Aren't the axioms of set theory--the foundation of mathematics--defined in terms of variables. If they're not mathematical concepts, then what are they?

>> > 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...
>

There is a distinct difference between a recursive definition and a circular definitition. You appear again to lack understanding. Perhaps this article will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_definition

>
> [Extra bulshit snipped]
>
Received on Mon Oct 23 2006 - 14:03:20 CEST