Re: Objects and Relations

On Jan 31, 6:29 am, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >On Jan 30, 6:33 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 29, 9:41 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 30, 2:01 pm, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> > > [snip]
>
> >> > > >These are clear disadvantages of RM here. Are there any advantages?
>
> >> > > Oh, come on! Surely you can troll better than that?
>
> >> > Do you realise I'm only talking about strings?
>
> Yes. So?
>
> >> > I'm not trolling. I'm quite serious.
>
> >> I believe that you believe what you're saying, so in some narrow
> >> sense you're not a troll. But you're still a troll in the broader
> >> sense,
> >> in that you're an outsider who doesn't exhibit much mastery of the
> >> RM, pops in with no prior posting history, and speaks of
> >> "clear disadvantages" without any signs of having done any actual
> >> analysis.
>
> >I'm not sure why you say I made the claims with no underlying basis.
>
> So what are the clear disadvantages? (As opposed to things that
> appear to you to be disadvantages.)

I agree that my choice of words was poor. I occasionally forget to distinguish between opinion and fact by qualifying relevant sentences with AFAIK or IMO etc.

I stated my reasons just before saying "These are clear disadvantages of RM here". If you disagree then please say why. For example do you believe that it is not difficult for a system to translate the updates back into efficient algorithms? Or do you believe that the updates won't be complicated at all?

Why don't you engage in the discussion rather than merely throw insults?

I don't think my post deserved your statement that I was trolling. Note as well that you stated this as fact rather than opinion.

I *expect* readers of my posts to be critical of my statements. Opinions count for little, but it is still reasonable to state them. Isn't the newsgroup mostly a forum for stating opinions? If you have something more substantial then you write a paper for a Journal.

> >On the contrary I outlined my reasons for making the claim. If my
>
> ^^^^^>reasoning was wrong through inexperience with RM then fair enough.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >But saying there
> was "no analysis" is quite wrong.
>
> >Implying I'm arrogant for making claims without sufficient experience
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >or credentials also comes across as a little arrogant on your part.
>
> You just admitted the point. Marshall just caught onto it more
> quickly than you did.
>
> Being ignorant is not a crime. Being ignorant and disrespecting
> the field from which you are requesting help is not either, but maybe,
> it should be.

I have a lot of respect for this newsgroup and Marshall in particular. Otherwise I wouldn't post to it. BTW I have rather less respect for comp.object.

> >Anyway I'm more interested in engaging in an objective discussion.
> >I'm quite happy to defend (and if necessary retract) my statements
> >through criticism.
>
> Why make statements that you have to retract?

I'm not perfect.

> Stating that you can not see how one would do something in an
> area and asking for help is much better than stating that the area is
> inadequate. After all, you do not know that, do you?

Yes I don't know that for sure.

I only suspect RM is a poor choice for modelling strings and string processing algorithms.

AFAIK there is no body of evidence to show it has an advantage in this area. This doesn't justify the claim but it does justify the question.

> >> If Gene dismisses you out of hand, I cannot fault him.
>
> I did not quite do that, but the responsibility for the proof of
> your claims lies with you. It is easy to claim that the RM is
> inadequate. It is quite another to prove it.

You are correct.

Universally quantified statements are easy to refute if a counter example can be found, but can be extremely difficult to prove true.

It is difficult to show that there doesn't exist an elegant solution to a given problem in RA. Therefore such a claim is merely conjecture.

Do you claim or in fact know that RM is good at modelling strings? Do you claim that we should assume so until proven otherwise? What is your standpoint on this? Received on Wed Jan 31 2007 - 01:53:55 CET