Re: Did the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize several new theories that are related to general database theory?
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <00e02148-e003-41cb-96c0-38dd693b2b57_at_googlegroups.com>
My solution is the first one that has atomic structures. This solution gives the atomic decomposition of entities (objects). A specific procedure for decomposing entities to atomic structures is also given. Note that atomic structures have tried to get a lot of people, but all these solutions have been unsuccessful.
Date & Darwen are trying to come up with this solution. They defined the socalled „Sixth Normal Form“. However, what is only important, they have not done, and that is how to solve the following problem: how to put any relation in „Sixth Normal Form“. How to get atomic relations.
Codd also try to get the atomic data structures. But Codd's solution failed because it uses a surrogate key. The surrogate key is bad solution. The surrogate key is also inconsistent with relational database theory and with Entity-Relationship model. Codd, Date and Darwen also made some others mistakes.
In my post on October 7, 2019 on this user group I wrote the following text:
My data and database solution has the necessary whole. That whole shows that the solution is complex. My solution involves this whole, which has the following four levels:
The first level. Thoughts.
Second level. Concepts (sets) and Objects (individuals).
Third level. Predicates and object's names.
Fourth level. Propositions.
The fourth level clearly suggests that thoughts are only what is true.
This means that I got:
Atomic Thoughts,
Atomic Concepts and objects,
Atomic Predicates
Atomic Propositions
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Fri Oct 11 2019 - 01:27:16 CEST