Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?

Jan

> On Monday, 2 February 2015 22:46:11 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:

<snip>

I am getting a tiny bit tired of this dancing around the definition tree, which allows you to sit there in some unknown space (to me not science, and no, I am not about to let you redefine science to me), ALLOWing him to be this or that or purple or yellow but neither right nor wrong. Are you aware, that to a practitioner in the physical universe, that is completely unacceptable ? If you crash your car into some other car, can you get away with dancing around your personal interpretations of the law, whose fault it is ? If your girlfriend is pregnant, do you discuss the nature and condition of the ovum, in order to assign some responsibility for paternity to the ovum ?

Let me try an keep it short and to the point. Only to drag you back to being short and to the point. In order to have the issue resolved. SO that you move on to point [2], et cetera.

> You have yet to give evidence for that claim.

I don't have to do any such thing, I have already explained why. The law stands for forty five years. This freak (or some freak who wrote the harry potter novel that he is using, came after that. So it is his job, the authors job, not my job, to explain why the freak is teaching something that goes against the law.

From your post, you don't actually *know* anything, you *stand* for nothing. You are quite happy to entertain this "definition"; that "definition"; this freak; that freak; etc. All at the same time. In the same cranial space. Well, you have not even noticed that each of them contradict each other. Therefore each of them is WRONG. Therefore ALL of them are WRONG.

Further, they each keep changing their "definitions". Truth does not change, it is permanent. Only pig poop changes. And there is no end to the changes. First it is soft and smelly; later it is hard, but still smelly; later still it shrinks and gets harder, and the smell is reduced; finally, it is very hard, and the smell is gone. Now it is approaching a permanent state. The law doesn't change. It states that "definitions" that contradict the law are illegal; that "definitions" that keep changing are not definitions, they are lies, unworthy of scientific consideration, pig poop.

Now the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1970, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form. From memory ie. I am happy to be corrected, but I expect any errors to be minor, unworthy of argument): ____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"

Date spent a lot of time trying to subvert that, and he failed.

This freaky professor doesn't have a clue what he is teaching, doesn't give a "definition" for the freaky thing he is teaching (not that a new "definition" would be acceptable, if he did give a new one, I would have a different problem with him). He can't even teach the thing that he thinks it is. Get a grip. That is why he is a fraud.

Don't check or quote wiki, it changes at the same rateas pig poop.

I do not "claim" that what he is teaching is wrong. I DECLARE, based on the standing unchanged evidence of forty five years, from the one authority who gave the law, that the freak is breaking the law, and teaching pig poop to innocent young minds, corrupting them. I STAND for something, the law. The name on this particular law is Codd, but I stand for all laws, from Moses downwards. None of your freaky friends or their changing "definitions" have the slightest impact on me, or on the law.

It is not an arguable matter.

My initial question to you was "do you know it is wrong", so that is there was an issue, we could close it. I had, and still have, no intention whatsoever of discussing the squirming thoughts of people who rely on pig poop. I couldn't care less about what freaks write in the harry potter novels; what other freaks think about it; whether they are used as textbooks or toilet paper. And if you do choose to argue, you will be further confirming your place among those freaks who are destroying education.

Do not dare to call it science, or to redefine the word.

Now go to point [2], please.

Cheers
Derek Received on Mon Feb 02 2015 - 16:09:04 CET