Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
On 17 mar, 17:26, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail..._at_dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Cimode wrote:
> > You I-am-building-Circle-values-of-type-system dead brain moron...No
> > wonder you designed an idiotic programming technique called *Fuzzy
> > programming* It perfectly meets your thinking...
> [Not for you, just for the record]
> The software I designed is not "fuzzy programming." It is for [crisp]
> programming with fuzzy sets, intuitionistic fuzzy sets, fuzzy numbers etc.
What a bunch of crap...
Sets were never fuzzy except for fuzzy thinkers. Fuzzy numbers are simply an obscure and poor branch of probabilism.
> Fuzzy set theory was pioneered by Lotfi Zadeh (1965). Its precursor and
> related works were done by Jan Łukasiewicz, Arthur P. Dempster, Glenn
> Shafer and the mathematical school of intuitionism. Alas, those weren't
> mine. I would find myself honored by such an assumption, if that wasn't
> made by someone so wonderfully ignorant...
Sorry, naive set theory and bourbakism had already made enough damage before relational algerba brought back some discipline into idiotic theories. (reminds me of alchemy in 14th century: people were truly convinced there was a technique to turn lead into gold)
*intuitionism* OR the dellusion of the possible projection of anthropomorphic characteristics on science and machines through computing and a self made probabilism that (almost) totally discards algebra and is based more on metaphysic than on math. In other words, dellusions of establishing limited predictability through an obscure 3 to N VL logic.
Due to its utter ignorance of relational algebra, fuzzy set theory was a dead end before it even started. I have more respect even for bourbakism and naive set theory which at least brought some basic symbolism on which people like Codd were able to build.
> Dmitry A. Kazakovhttp://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Received on Mon Mar 17 2008 - 14:06:42 CDT