Re: Proposal: 6NF
Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:46:37 -0700
Message-ID: <1161377197.769412.213290_at_h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
vc wrote:
Your points are perfectly valid and only illogical idiots can not
recognize them as sound and logic.
I have tried to warn you on several occasions that you are wasting time with people like Jan Hidders, Marshall, Bob Badour or Keith Duggar...These people are IGNORANTS of mathematical concepts and definitions and what such defintions imply. Moreover, they either lack the cognitive capability to realize it or the intellectual honnesty to admit their errors...In a word, they are Frauds who should be ignored OR EXPOSED. I exposed their bullshit on the FEW (Fraud Exposal Wall). Here are the pointers of their bullshits...(with a quote of their own words!)..Feel free to complete...
Fraud Number 1 MARSHALL (Math are made with unicorns!!!)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/32908da39b71a373
A sample of his enlightenning knowledge of math...(His precise words) <<there is no distinction between "integer" and "integer value." >> << I rather think 3 has more in common with unicorns than with horses. (This is of course a metaphoric statement rather than a literal one.) But I find 3 to be ... useful nonetheless. >>
Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt (Operations are possible only between integers)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/f76650c73bdc9375 << This isn't really much of a stretch: For example, two scalar type variables must be of the same type if we wish to do arithmetic with them. Limiting ourselves to integers for this discussion, both scalar variable types must hold data of integer types. >>
Fraud Number 3: U-Gene (A relvalue is a relation as a value is the same as a function)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/52775e265013cbd5
In this one, that idiot of Gene basically states that a relation =
relvalue (he does not make any difference between the transformation
and the concept of value)
<<Two relations (relvalues) exists. These relations have different
headers (schemas). Are these relvalues the values of different types?
>>
Fraud Number 4 Kenneth Downs
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/cd1f9674bab7af85
<<You don't have to worry all that much about what the relational model
allows or doesn't allow. As anybody here can tell you, there are no
pure
relational databases in the Real World. >> You know the usual
bulshit...
Fraud Number 5: Bob Badour (This one sets a standard for other Frauds )
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/9ce33a3eff21084d
<<I am not sure value is a concept that has meaning in pure mathematics. >>
Fraud Number 6: Keith H Duggar (The dummest of all - A fascist overlord)
On the type of motivations behind his participation to the NG
<<By all means stay, with chemistry as long as you like so I can keep pressing my Chemical Engineering Ph. D. jackboot on your squirming neck.>>
<< Water is fascinating to me. Starring at oceans of liquid oxygen and hydrogen, I can't help but feel some mystical connection with the substance. So important it is to our past, present, and future. >>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/dd6c8b82166441ad Received on Fri Oct 20 2006 - 22:46:37 CEST