Re: Proposal: 6NF

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161614329.404823.92230_at_k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
>

So, the elements of a domain are not values? I'm sure that many would disagree with you.

>> 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.
>
>

If a value cannot exist without a transformation, then the elements of a domain are not values; if the elements of a domain are not values, then a variable cannot draw its values from a domain; if a variable cannot draw its values from a domain, then no transformation can be defined; therefore, either values can exist independent of transformations, or transformations cannot be defined.

>> 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!!!
>

A definition is recursive if at least one but not all of its terms reference it; a definition is circular if all of its terms reference it. Received on Thu Oct 26 2006 - 14:10:10 CEST