Re: The Terrific Trio

On Mar 3, 3:10 am, paul c <toledoby..._at_ac.ooyah> wrote:

[Snipped]
> Cimode, please don't say that. AFAIAC you are a "wise" guy in the best
> several senses of the word (even if I doubt that any engine of yours
> would please me, for that matter no engine of my own has ever pleased
> me!).
Thats is very considerate of you to say that but I assure you, not deserved. Unfortunately, I wish I had such a good opinion of myself. The problem when trying to clarify a computing model that would deliver what a TRDBMS is supposed to deliver, is that one quickly runs into mathematical questions that require a mathematical responses that are both coherent with relational algebra but not only. On the last few years, I have determined some solutions calling for help a broader range of mathematical tools, but an entire realm of questions I have not answered and doubt I will some day. Which is why I revised my ambition and decided to build a core that would allow reasonable people to ask the right questions instead of me and maybe answer them at a later time. I have ran into some problems that Steve Tarin probably ran into while designing the TRM and tried to avoid the traps he probably fell into. So far I have determined the precise fundamental reason why TRM was doomed to failure: it explores the concept of data independence logical representation but does not characterize the traps in which it is important not to fall.

I have some satisfaction because I have the mathematical probabilistic proof that any direct image implementation fundamentally necessarily consumes more resources a non direct image system but not for the reasons we usually imagine. Subsequently to this formal demonstration, I have worked at designing a logical representation of data layer that includes the discoveries and brings innovative perspective onto relation operation and manipulation . But the more I dig into unknown waters, the more I realize how limited is the time to solve these issues. I sometime feel lonely into this effort and wish I could have a helping hand. So I delude myself into the hope of finding men of reasonnable and good faith on Usenet to verify my proof and eventually point out and correct my mistakes.

> Usenet is full of linear thinkers (like me) and there are way too
> many of those for one planet.
Quite frankly, I am highly skeptical about the *multidimensional* fancy aspect of science. As far as I am concerned, cautious and linear progress of science is a guarantee of soundness. In such tedious process, one *may* run into interesting discoveries but that is the exception not the rule.

> Maybe you were just born stupid and your
> native tongue makes you seem smart to me, but that doesn't matter in the
> end, plus I don't think you are stupid at all, unlike so many of the
> copycats, illiterates and fake rationalists that are showing up here
> lately. Nor are you aren't a phoney. To my more-or-less English ears,
> your lingo comes across as quite earnest and therefore respectable, even
> if it sounds disjointed at times. Nothing against phonies who don't
> know it except that there is really no such thing - if there were, they
> would be easily dispensed with since they would be mere unknowing
> pretenders who succumbed to cross-posting until a more civilized culture
> had been explained to them. You have no need to apologize for what you
> might say about N.A. culture. Please keep it up even if your N.A.
> respondents don't get it.
I will keep that in mind. Thanks. Received on Mon Mar 03 2008 - 14:15:29 CET