Path: news.easynews.com!core-easynews!newsfeed3.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news.glorb.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s03.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Jim Kennedy" From: "Jim Kennedy" Newsgroups: comp.databases.object,comp.databases,comp.databases.theory,comp.object References: <4b45d3ad.0405201025.7a04d225@posting.google.com> <4b45d3ad.0405202106.4d079b08@posting.google.com> <4b45d3ad.0405221528.559f5a68@posting.google.com> <4b45d3ad.0405231249.3a2a28f6@posting.google.com> <4b45d3ad.0406031735.39895ff6@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge) Lines: 105 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.5.156 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s03 1086473255 24.20.5.156 (Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:07:35 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:07:35 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:07:35 GMT Xref: core-easynews comp.databases.object:25930 comp.databases:105435 comp.databases.theory:35713 comp.object:178623 X-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:06:58 MST (news.easynews.com) "Hugo Kornelis" wrote in message news:u9d4c09obogel9uft56v5jctslrjabc57e@4ax.com... > Hi Neo, > > Good grief! I've been away from this discussion for two days and now I > keep seeing the same message over and over again! Is it my reader, your > posting software or did you actually think your arguments become more > convincing if you just repeat them over and over again. (Be warned - I > have two children, aged 7 and 8, so I am quite familiar with this > technique and I can assure that it won't work on me.) > > Answers in-line between the quote. I'll send this to just the first of > your seven identical messages and leave the other six unanswered. > > > On 3 Jun 2004 18:35:31 -0700, Neo wrote: > > >> I changed my model ...now down to 11.0 ms ... > >> ... better than the 16 ms that XDb1 needs... > > > >Because RM solutions (1, 2 and 4) thus far aren't nearly as normalized > >or generic as XDb1's, they fail under a broader scope of data. Below > >is such data: > > "broader"? Broader than *what*? Broader than the scope you outlined in > your challenge message? Yes, you can bet your sweet bippy that my RM > solutions (1 and 2 only - I won't take ANY responsibility for the mess you > wrote yourself and went on to call RM#4) will fail under a "broader" > scope. They won't roast the toast either, as I'm sure that XDb1 v7.18.4 > someday will. Who cares? > > It's really quite simple, Neo. You set a challenge. You outlined the > requirements and promised a reward for the first to fulfill those > requirements. I entered the challenge. I met all the requirements you > stated. And then you started stating additional requirements, producing > new versions of XDb1 and making a fool out of yourself. > > What will it be, Neo? Will you finally admit that I've done exactly what > you asked? Are you going away? Or will you really go on making a fool out > of yourself, throwing away what's left of your credibility (if any)? > > > >Enter a small hierarchy of 3 things, where god is the parent of an > >unnamed person, and god is also the parent of a person with three > >names (string 'john', integer 100, decimal 3.14). Although the data > >may not seem sensible, think of it in a broader scope: a thing which > >doesn't have an attribute and a thing which has an attribute with > >three values, each of different type. > > > >Below is XDb1's script to model the above hierarchy (older versions of > >XDb1 will not process the below sentences correctly; however, the > >equivalent can be accomplished via their GUI or API or the db can be > >downloaded from website): > > > (snip script) > > > >Right-clicking on god and selecting 'Anc Report' generates the > >following where the unnamed thing's classes (and attributes, if any) > >are printed, and all values for name of the second person are printed. > > > >Common 'parent' Report for 'god' > >ThingX ThingY CmnAnc Dist > >person john 100 3.14 god 2 > >Time Elapsed: 0.906550 msec > > How does this small hierarchy of 3 things relate to the challenge you > posted (http://tinyurl.com/yvm5g) almost three weeks ago? There is nothing > in that message that even hints at the requirement of storing nameless or > multiple-named things. You just added that in later. And the fact that you > had to update XDb1 to accept this input without kludging through the GUI > or programming through the API shows that the version of XDb1 that was > current when you set the challenge couldn't do this either. > > > >RM solutions thus far, lack the normalization and genericness to > >represent the above data. > > Both RM#1 and RM#2 are, as requested for this challenge, "using the > relational model (...) from normalized and NULL-less data". I dared you > several times salready to show which of the normalization rules of the > relational model my solution violates. I quoted Codd's definitions of the > normal forms, with URL. You just need to state which of these definitions > I misunderstood when I called my model normalized. Or you may provide a > URL to an alternate description of normalization IN THE RELATIONAL MODEL. > > > If RM's solution could be updated to > >accommodate the above, we will be one step closer to making an > >apple-to-apple comparison. > > I'm not interested in apples, nor in comparisons. This discussion is about > a challenge you set, not about benchmarking. > > Best, Hugo > -- Hugo, It is no use arguing with a fool; it only makes you look foolish. I'm putting this guy in my Kill File. I suggest you do the same. He had no intention of paying up, it was all a scam to advertise this "database". I think we have wasted enough time on this nonsense. Jim > > (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)