Re: What is a database?

On 2014-02-28, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:

  <snipped (or excluded) - an enormous amount of garbage about the    brilliance of Derek and the insanity of others>

You are obviously not interested in a rational discussion, and there is no way that what you have written can be answered as a unit. I shall content myself with responding to a few things that caught my eye on the way through.

>> A non-answer, since what I was asking for is the definitions of the
>> words you used.
>
> Well, you need to be more precise in your English. I was answering your
> post, not reading your mind.

You weren't supposed to read my mind, just tell me what you meant. You haven't done that.

>> You do not give your reasons, but ignore or disparage theirs.
>
> Er, they did *not* give reasons, they gave lunacy.

Point proven, since you seem to define lunacy as anything you don't agree with.

> Er, I am the authority, as a faithful disciple of Codd, following the
> theory since 1976 and theory-applied-as-practice, exclusively, since 1987.

We have only your word that you are a faithful disciple. Actually I wouldn't boast about it if I were you, it gives the impression of someone with blind unquestioning faith in a valuable but probably imperfect proposition.

> ... Anchor Modelling have implemented parts of it ...

Baiting Vladimir are we? He posts here to record his work that he claims they have plagiarised. For all I know, he may be right.

> a. Read only Codd.

After all, no one else could possibly have added any value (except you of course).

> b. Follow this thread sincerely

More religious overtones. Also acting as if you own the thread, which no one does.

> entity vs table
> tuple vs row
> attribute vs column
> key vs index

Are you claiming that there is no worthwhile distinction between the two terms in each pair? It sounds like it. Wrong on all counts.

>> <more weirdness snipped>
>
> More evidence of hypocrisy. Name-calling accepted without response.

I think that something you wrote is weird. That pales in comparison with the number of people you call insane because of what they wrote.

>> Look up where? In the original paper ...
>
> You seem to have some parts of it yes,

I have all of it.

> ... but you seem to be missing the major section re *Order* and *Ordered*

So quote me a piece of that section, so that I can find it and understand what you are talking about.

>>> It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that,
>>> not outside that.
>>
>> If only we could agree on what "normal human logic" means.

I shan't retain your attempt to (apparently) define a "normal human". Most of it is not objective, and most of the bits that are apparently objective are in fact making unreasonable distinctions.

> I offer those, because I do not think the absent agreement or definition
> needs to hold up the progress of the thread.

Trying to own the thread again? So arrogant.

>> An ad hominem attack on unnamed persons does not constitute either an
>> answer or an argument.
>
> I didn't suggest that such attacks (whether they are ad hominem or not) on
> those freaks, was an answer or an argument. No idea why you think it is.

Clutching at straws, because nothing else you wrote was either?

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry