Re: How to normalize this?

On Friday, 15 February 2013 11:23:09 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:47:27 -0800 (PST) Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> > There is no point quoting one, or the other, or all five, sentences
> > in which he used the term. Doing that would be considering the
> > sentences in isolation.
>
> The simple fact is that any sentence *can* be considered isolation.
> That is how formal logic proceeds, sentence by sentence.

Of course.

That is great when you need to apply stepwise logic to a problem. But humans, and databases these days are not limited to binary stepwise progression (evidently you are). There is context; there is the fact that the post at which you hijacked this thread is an implementation, not a test of abstract logic; therefore the attempt to apply it to that concrete context and set of facts is, well, not logical. I do not have the time to define logic to you.

You are absolutely stuck in it, granted. I can own imagine the problems you have approached the real world with a stepwise, abstract mindset.

The reason it is dishonest is, the original reference (yours) was made about Eric's post; which I commented about; and now you have taken the single sentence out, and presented it in isolation. That may be "logic" to you, and the way "logic" was taught in class, but that simply isn't logic to humans who have not lost the context. Certainly lawyers try that in court, but they do not get away with it.

Now you *could* just post your opinion, without reference to mine, but you don't. No, you isolate one sentence and attack it (not me the person, but my sentence). Which leads to long posts trying to explain something across the canyon. I did try, but now I am giving up.

> > Codd's "time-varying relations" are specifically about consistency.
>
> That sentence is false, because the term "time-varying relations"
> refers to concepts other than consistency.

See, there is another example of the same thing. Only a complete nutcase needs to be told that I did not state that; that that (posing the opposite) does not make the statement false; that I stated something specific to the context of that post, and nothing else. But you argue the nothing else. Sickening.

If I don't answer your posts, it means I have not opened them. Too much demand of my time, to step through the mud (your "logic", given the absence of the human variety), and we never get to the good stuff.

Goodbye
Derek Received on Fri Feb 15 2013 - 09:20:20 CET