Re: Proposal: 6NF

David Cressey wrote:

[Irrelevant philosphy bs snipped]

> Beyond all that, Cimode's argument that you have to "demonstrate" your
> definition misunderstands the entire concept of a definition. A definition
> is (ahem, by definition) a convention that various communicators agree to
> use to assign significance to the messages they exchange. As such,
> definitions are not "right" or "wrong" so much as they are "useful" or
> "harmful". (See Marshall's comments going way back in this newsgroup).
An argument does not misunderstand...(a person misunderstand not a concept,mister I speak english)...
> Having said that, Cimode's appeal to his definition of "value" being
> "universally recognized in mathematics" carries some weight, if it can be
> verified. As you say, Brian, the wikipedia doesn't seem to verifiy it to
> the level of falsifying your definition.
Of course, it can be verified you MORON in any decent math book. Have you ever opened one in your life!!! Another reference

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/few_words.shtml#value A function f:A->B is defined in A and takes *values* in B. Thus, for aA (a in A), f takes on the value of f(a)B.

If you moron still don't get it try...
http://www.amathsdictionaryforkids.com/
http://www.harcourtschool.com/glossary/math2/index_temp.html

> Insults traded between people who have learned different definitions convey
> nearly no useful information, and should be omitted from the discussion.
What have you or that idiot of Brian produced so far?...Etymology bulshit, tchit tchat about language but NO references NO demonstrations just plain irrelevant bullshits to the topic at hand? --> Definition of VALUE in mathematics. I have wasted enoough time with you morons...Bob Badour would have plonked you for a long time...Maybe that's one thing I should consider doing... Received on Mon Oct 23 2006 - 17:24:11 CEST