JOG wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 14:18, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I realize now that BB has elevated to art, the ability to hide
>>anything obvious that would undermine his authority in this NG. He
>>automatically pinpoints anything that may potentially represent a
>>serious contradiction, then he builds a straw man for that. (In this
>>case me).
>>
>>Question is once again where is the *intellectual honesty* and
>>*sincerity* in that?
>>
>>Below the proofs...
>>
>>
>>>>>If I am not mistaken, it is *grammar*. What I meant is that LegoBlock
>>>>>and Location concepts should be separated if LegoBlock is to be
>>>>>considered a relation. A relation *must* have a stable primary key.
>>>>>Location is not a stable primary key therefore it does not identify
>>>>>LegoBlock. Please be sincere.
>>>
>>>It is ironic. Above, Cimode insists on a far greater restriction than
>>>required by the RM.
>>
>>According to BB's version of RM, stability for keys is not mandatory.
>>Such leniance leads to acceptance of dynamic based keys such as
>>location. If BB considered the logical consequence of that, he would
>>have realized that the principle of stability in key selection has a
>>direct impact on the respect or disrespect of the *mandatory* principe
>>of *indiscernibility* which is not just about design.
>>
>>The principle states that --there's no way whatsoever of
>>distinguishing between two objects, then there aren't two objects but
>>only one.--(CJ DATE)
>>
>>Imagine 2 spheres of different sizes with the same center. If they
>>are to be identified by their location XYZ then they would be
>>indiscernible one from another.
>
> This so wrong it hurts my head.
>
> If two spheres are in different locations then they /are/ discernable
> as being unique. That's the whole point. Good grief.
Cimode likes to appeal to authority. Let's see if he can figure out what
to do with the following:
stability tradeoff site:dbdebunk.com
(What to do seems obvious enough to me.)
Received on Thu Feb 15 2007 - 09:17:58 CST
