Re: Objects and Relations

JOG wrote:
> Having seen your [Marshall] patient responses to neo's
> quotes I thought it might be worth pointing out that all
> of his posts display classic symptoms of trolling - subtle
> changes in meaning, intentional misinterpretation of
> responses, attacking time-established fundamentals with
> nebulous statements bordering on meaninglessness. I am
> sure he is capable of opening a set-theory primer, or
> googling 'empty set' (and lets be honest, this is not a
> complex construct), and as such I worry you are squandering
> (perhaps valuable?) time playing his usenet games.

It is worth amplifying this warning by reminding us of a Neo analysis I wrote some time ago which pointed out that he is either a demi-crank or an elite-troll:

Marshall wrote :
> But there's still a lot missing, specifically
> semantics. What exactly do new, select, create, update,
> delete do? (I think I've got 'and' figured out, though.)
> What kind of scope do symbols have?

Jay Dee wrote :
> But I really don't know what the results of those
> functions are. Are the, perhaps, operations that have no
> results? ...

Neo has repeatedly been asked precisely these same questions in a variety of ways and every time has refused or remains unable to provide /actual/ answers. He often responds with troll-like behavior: referencing irrelevant material as in his direction to the "IDJIT" thread, responding with skew lines and tangents, responding with wanna-be-erudite falsepith  like "lambda", etc. If it weren't for his website, examples, etc he could easily be dismissed as a simple troll. The presence of that material either makes him an Elite Troll or a demi-crank of some kind.

His reluctance to answer "what" probably points to it being a disguised rehash of network or entity-relationship models or similar. But Neo is afraid if he comes out and honestly, plainly states this fact nobody will pay attention to him any longer. Below I'm quoting two of my posts in a previous thread Neo hijacked that are directly on point.

Neo wrote:
> paul c wrote :
> > From the link, apparently 'new', 'createWRR' and
> > 'create' are functions ...

> Yes, these are "functions" similar to CREATE, INSERT,
> SELECT, DELETE and UPDATE in SQL/RM.

> > ... although it seems to talk only of syntax.

> Yes, kind of like a car manual: Turn steering wheel to
> turn car. It doesn't explain how it is accomplished.

It seems you are confusing /syntax/, /semantics/, and /implementation/. "Turn steering wheel to turn car" defines (partly perhaps) the "meaning" ie /semantics/ of the function (or perhaps function turn applied to argument wheel) of "turn steering wheel". "how it is accomplished" is part of /implementation/ neither /semantics/ nor /syntax/.

This is basic stuff and confusing them makes it more difficult for others to understand you. So try not to confuse them. You can easily find numerous resources to help you understand the concepts of syntax and semantics more clearly.

For example, if you take roughly that "what = semantics", "how done = implementation", "how communicated = syntax", then Paul is saying you spend inordinate amounts of time showing "how to communicate" but very little time showing /what/ is being communicated. You leave it up to us to infer the /what/ or /semantics/ by essentially guessing. That is inefficient and annoying. The fact that you cannot clearly and succinctly state your data model and semantics of your "dbs" functions, I think, tells a great deal.

paul c wrote:
> Neo wrote:
> > Ok, so you are saying if a dbd user represents a person
> > named Suzie whose parents are John and Mary via ...
> > ...

> No, I'm not. I think I need to see some English first and
> preferably some formal notation outside of dbd script
> which defines what dbd does, before I can understand the
> phrase 'dbd user represents a person', as well as the rest
> of the dbd syntax. I'll have to give up on that until I
> see something along those lines.

Paul, I don't think you are /ever/ going to get something along these lines. Because Neo either doesn't know how to provide it, is embarrassed to provide it, has a persecution complex, or is paranoid and erroneously thinks he is going to make millions off an RM "alternative" that took him "10 years" to develop.

I found these Neo comments illuminating:

Neo wrote:
> Currently dbd doesn't implement user/app-defined
> constraints. To do so, one would need to write an
> application in C/C++ which calls dbd via its API.
> ...
> Currently, dbd's select statements do not perform math
> operations, sums, total, etc. For example, find all person
> who were hired after 1/1/06. It can do something similar,
> find all current employees who have signed clients X, Y
> and Z on Date1, Date2, and have senority A, B and C.

I think if he ever does reveal the fruit of "10 years" we are going to find out it's just yet another implementation of a network model with a few C++ pointers (as in numerical addresses) pointing in directions Neo considers novel.

Alas, it seems he is just going to continue playing secret squirrel games hiding his nuts in the garden and squawking for people to search for them.

• Keith -- Fraud 6 --