# Re: Proposal: 6NF

Date: 23 Oct 2006 07:38:49 -0700

Message-ID: <1161614329.404823.92230_at_k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

> 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.
*

I am not the one saying it idiot, that's a formal definition of value
concept, be it number or anything...Are you mentally impaired...

> 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.
*

You should not do anything else than grammar moron...People like you
should not deal at all with data management theory...

> > *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?
*

*variables* are independent from definition of *value* concept. Only
transformation are necessary to define values. variables are merely
temporary placeholders for values represented by symbols such as *x* to
facilitate deductive reasonning onto formal definitions of
transformations.

> There is a distinct difference between a recursive definition and a circular

*> definitition. You appear again to lack understanding. Perhaps this article
**> will help:
*

So what is a *circular definition* then???? Define it you idiot!!!
Received on Mon Oct 23 2006 - 16:38:49 CEST