Re: Objects and Relations

"David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:

>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

     No, you are the one disagreeing. Now, you state your reasons. Otherwise, we may well just be dealing with someone's misunderstanding. Read some of the literature first if you need to.

>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?

     What 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.

     Nope. If you look, you will see that while my statement implies that you were trolling, it did not actually say that.

>I *expect* readers of my posts to be critical of my statements.

     OK. I am doing fine on that.

>Opinions count for little, but it is still reasonable to state them.

     Sure. Now, back them up.

>Isn't the newsgroup mostly a forum for stating opinions? If you have

     No. It is for discussing theory. Simply waving ones hands about and claiming that the RM has weaknesses just does not do it. We have seen it before, all too many times. If you have a substantial point, make it, and give reasons.

>something more substantial then you write a paper for a Journal.

     That is another option.

>> >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.

     You need caution. You might say that you do not see how the RM handles X because of whatever reason and invite clarification. Claiming that there are weaknesses when you can not substantiate them is rude.

>> >> 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?

     It is your hobbyhorse. You ride it. If it looks like fun, others may join in.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.