X-Received: by 10.50.176.229 with SMTP id cl5mr1340140igc.3.1393808597595; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:03:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.43.198 with SMTP id y6mr224749igl.7.1393808597461; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:03:17 -0800 (PST) Path: news.cambrium.nl!textnews.cambrium.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.96.0.7.MISMATCH!newsfeed.utanet.at!newsfeed.tele2net.at!news.glorb.com!ur14no1752059igb.0!news-out.google.com!h8ni2igy.0!nntp.google.com!ur14no1752045igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:03:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=121.216.92.219; posting-account=bFMNewoAAAAHC6b_JPlV7XvI31zIuG5T NNTP-Posting-Host: 121.216.92.219 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What is a database? From: Derek Asirvadem Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 01:03:17 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.cambrium.nl > On Saturday, 1 March 2014 09:13:28 UTC+11, Eric wrote: > > > On 2014-02-28, Derek Asirvadem wrote: > > You are obviously not interested in a rational discussion,=20 Thus far, you cannot read, let alone understand the RM, so *discussion* is = not possible. I have already explained: at this point it is educational, a one way street= ; *discussion*, is a two-way street; discussion requires a common understan= ding, and there is a huge gap on your side. Which is why it can only be *e= ducational* at this point. If and when we reach that required common under= standing, then and only then, can we entertain the possibility of discussio= n. > and there is > no way that what you have written can be answered as a unit.=20 So answer it in parts. You seem to be really good at fragmenting things wh= en you want to prove something that is not there; try your hand at fragment= ing for something that is there, then respond to it. If you have a short attention span, read my posts one section at a time. A= bsorb it; deal with it; close it, before you go to the next section. I can= 't apologise for answering all issues, or my condensed format. Dr E F Codd= does the same. My customers love it. Or else read and understand the whole of my post, and respond only to the p= arts that you do not understand, or wish to progress. But I suspect that m= ay be a bit too normal for you. > I shall > content myself with responding to a few things that caught my eye on the > way through. Ok. So the evidence is, you can't follow the thread and progress it. But = I am the one who is irrational. That is "logic". > You weren't supposed to read my mind, just tell me what you meant. You > haven't done that. Er, if you followed the thread, you might have picked up, that: -- it doesn't matter what *I* think -- because you want a definition for a database, and Dr E F Codd wrote the = RM, which is the standard -- that the *Ordered, Structured, Normalised* that matters ,is what *Codd w= rote*. =20 Let's make it really easy for you: subtract the extensions that *I* wrote, = so that you don't have to deal with my brilliance. Just see if you can und= erstand and apply *Codd's Brilliance*. It is not for me to provide an exposition on Codd's work in this thread, an= d the medium isprevents that anyway. But I have condescended to answer you= r questions, and assist by explaining anything in the RM that you do not un= derstand. However, you have to be able to read. Since you do not understand: > > A database is an ordered, structured collection of data it is for you read, understand, and apply, the *Ordered, Structured, Normal= ised* as defined in Codd's the Relational Model. And sure, for the gaps in= your understanding, I was happy to fill those in. It is fair enough that the insane, since they cannot comprehend Codd, rush = to redefine *database, Order, Structure* in their own private terms, so tha= t they can claim understanding and provide "maffematical definitions" of it= . It appears that you at least one step more capable than them (which is w= hy I bother), but it is not proved that your normal human capabilities are = intact (ability to read & understand the RM). For a while there, it appeared that you were more capable than that, you ac= cepted two public definitions, and we were close to agreeing on a third. But when the need came for understanding Codd's definitions and prescriptio= ns, on top of the foundation Oxford definitions, you have shown that you un= derstand zero. You can't find anything in the RM that applies to *Ordered,= Structured, Normalised*. But somehow, according to your "logic", it is I = who is not explaining what I meant, and it is I who is irrational. Even after I gave you specific assistance and direction, trying to close ju= st one of the three items: > > Please read the entire section [1]; see if you come up with anything re= the Order and Ordered, as per dictionary definition that [I think] we have= agreed to. I will take it from there. There is a huge chunk missing. ... you have come up with zero. Hence, you want me to explain the RM to you. I have already stated, this m= edia is not appropriate for delivering education. I can only answer the qu= estions that you ask. Now it is proved, given the evidence of your eyes an= d mind, education is impossible. The ground is not capable of absorption. Perhaps the problem is with the eyes. If not, then it points to a limitati= ons of mind. Blaming others your inability to comprehend is a common trait= . > We have only your word that you are a faithful disciple [of Codd]. Actual= ly 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. Amazing. You cannot find *Ordered, Structured, Normalised* in the RM, but = you have drawn conclusions about it. Absolutely amazing. =20 And conclusions from those who provide categorical evidence that they have = no understanding whatsoever re the subject matter, are somehow "valid". =20 I suppose you have large crystal balls to compensate for the damaged eyes. That proves further that education is impossible. The ground is barren. > > ... 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. If you had honestly read that thread, you would have seen that I supported = him, but disagreed with the plagiarism charge. But then there is the eye p= roblem. You could google for Anchor Modelling. But then there is the absorption pr= oblem. > More religious overtones. Also acting as if you own the thread, which > no one does. Agreed. No need to be so fearful. You are asking me questions, about subj= ects that you do not understand; I am providing answers and references. Fo= r that interaction, I am the authority, you are the seeker. If you can't h= andle that, you can't obtain what you declare you are seeking. > > 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.=20 Only to the blind and the mentally crippled. I said, and please read it as= the continuous unit that I presented: ---- - There is a large obstacle, created by the hysterical false authorities, e= ither out of incompetence, or to purposely subvert the science of database = design), that reduces "logical" to what is in fact,=20 -- (a) a mere rendition of *single* "physical" articles: entity vs table tuple vs row attribute vs column key vs index etc Which act: -- (b) thereby limits "logical" to physical articles. =20 Logical, by definition, is at least one level of abstraction removed from t= he Physical. Normal undamaged humans can contemplate and implement several= layers of abstraction; several forms of Logical; each logical element may = be a *collection* of physical elements. Subhumans "define" (with an enormou= s group hug called "citations") "logical" as a mere alternate label of the = physical, thus limit their "logical" to the physical, and prevent genuine L= ogical [Structure, Order] to be recognised; analysed; modelled; implemented= . ---- Note, I did not "claim that there is no worthwhile distinction between the = two terms in each pair", or any such thing. I specifically stated several = other things. You have fabricated a conclusion of your own accord, from so= mething I did not state. Ok, it is a figment of your imagination. I have n= o idea why you attribute to me, you can take full credit for it. =20 But since you are presenting it to me, Ok, I agree, you are right, your fab= ricated figment is wrong. For readers without vision or mind problems, who are following the substanc= e of the thread, Yes there is a distinction. The distinction is trivial: = it is merely the logical *view* vs the physical *view*, of the one model. = But as per my original post, that is not the problem. The problem is that -- those with crippled minds have, by their mountain of marketed garbage, m= anaged to establish that trivial difference as *the* difference between log= ical and physical, the *definition* of logical -- That presents an obstacle to *genuine* recognition of the Logical -- And thus analysis; modelling; improvement of the actual Logical is preve= nted. Therefore, in order to understand the RM, the Logical Structures therein, a= nd to model them, we have to erase that pithy definition of Logical, and op= en up to its normal meaning, it RM meaning. Not for the blind. > Wrong on all counts. That is one count. You can't even count to one ??? Agreed that it was wrong. But it is your figment, not mine, so it is you who is wrong. That is zero = counts on my side; one count on your side. On one item. I won't count the= other items for you, but please don't bother counting them: with your evid= enced eye problem and inability to count single digits, that count would no= t be a count that you can count on. > > You seem to have some parts of it yes,=20 > I have all of it. But you cannot find any definitions or prescriptions re *Ordered, Structure= d, Normalised* in section [1. Relational Model and Normal Form]. Not in [1.3 A Relational View of Data], the very section that defines it, a= fter [1.2 Data Dependencies in Present Systems], the section identifying th= e problems that it solves. Not in [1.4 Normal Form]. Hint: that means Normal Form. Looking back at 1= 970, from 1984 onwards, it is in fact: --------------------------- Relational Normal Form. --------------------------- Therefore, no, you might well have the piece of paper, but evidently, thus = far, you do not "have" or possess, or hold any knowledge of its content wha= tsoever. And yes, you evidently have firm conclusions about what you know = nothing about. But somehow it is I who is irrational. I will give you one last chance. Summarised the context at the present state of progress: 1. You state that you want to understand *Ordered, Structured, Normalised* 2. You had no clue what that meant. 3. We agreed to standard public definitions (Big Tick, you are less crippl= ed that those who compulsively redefine terms). 4. We agreed that Codd's RM was the definitive article relating to Relatio= nal Databases. 5. We took one term *Ordered* 6. We understood that there are two levels to the terms:=20 6.a. normal human understanding -- It appears you accept the Oxford definitions that apply 6.b. Having achieved [6.a], upon which, and within which, Codd's definitio= ns are to be taken. -- you allege that you have read the RM, but you have not found re *Order o= r Ordered* as [per [6.a] -- but thousands of others have -- so the failure is on your side, to try and obtain the relevance of the R= M, thus far just one definition *Order* of the three *Ordered, Structured, = Normalised*. -------- Therefore the next step for you, to overcome your stalled position, in achi= eving what you said you want to achieve, is to read the RM very slowly, and= to stop and ask a question, the moment to you do understand something. -------- 6.c. I supplied explanatory notes -- you dismiss them ("") without understanding them "weirdness" -- maybe I presented those notes a bit too early for you. In which case, f= ine, dismiss them; proceed with the identified task; ask questions and I wi= ll answer -- but for capable humans, the idea is to observe those notes as assistance= to understanding the very thing (the RM) that you do not understand -- you are going to have to stretch a little, and at least contemplate (if = not accept) that there are things beyond your understanding; if and when yo= u venture into those areas, which are by definition, new to you, it may fee= l "weird". You will not die. Other people do it all the time. -------- So either dismiss my notes, read the RM, and ask questions, or if you can o= perate at the required level, observe my notes whilst reading the RM, slowl= y. -------- 6.d. You may be prevented from understanding those things, by the mountain= of garbage written by the "famous aufers" and "muffemaffishuns" who purpor= t to understand the RM, and who provide expositions about it. -- Remove that garbage from your mind. I have already explained: it is gar= bage; and it prevents genuine understanding of the RM -- Do not compare the RM which you are starting to read for yourself agains= t the garbage, it will prevent your understanding -- I am not supplying "muffemaffishuns deffinishuns"; I have already stated= , the RM is easy to understand in terms of (a) simple English plus (b) esta= blished computer science terms. We are proceeding with that, hence the seq= uence I am attempting to lead you through. -- Note that those aufers have schizophrenic, dis-integrated minds; that Co= dd has an integrated mind; that the RM is integrated, not dis-integrated; t= herefore the dis-integrated cannot explain the integrated -- I can, but you find it "weird". 6.e. It must be noted that even though you have not read or understood the= paper, let alone read or understood the referenced terms in it, you have f= irm conclusions about it: > [The RM is] a valuable but probably > imperfect proposition. -- That (thinking you know something that you evidently, clearly, have not = read and understood) will present an obstacle to genuine understanding. -- The declaration is pure drivel. -- As required for any good student, you will have to give up your notions;= accept that you are learning; accept that you do not understand the subjec= t that you are learning; keep an open mind; and sincerely try to learn. If= you can't do that, do not waste my time or yours. 7. Explanatory Note re Referenced Terms --------------------------------------------- You may dismiss this as "weird", but it needs to be said, given the pulp fi= ction that is written, cited, and accepted as "scientific papers" these day= s. Now, please note, unlike the demands of some people on this forum, to compu= lsively redefine every little term from scratch, in 1970, when education ha= d not been destroyed, and brains were not scrambled, people understood that= when one made a reference to a technical term in a technical paper, in mea= nt that: a. The term was an established technical term b. The author relied on the established (public) definition (it eliminated= idiotic discussion about meanings and definitions; as I have been trying t= o do; the 90% of white noise on this thread) c. The reader was supposed to understand the technical term (and if not: s= uspend reading this paper; read the relevant paper to obtain that understan= ding; return to this paper when that is achieved. And not before.) That means, since it is a 1970's paper for the capable of mind, who lived i= n one universe,(not a 2010's paper with private definitions for the scrambl= ed of mind, each with private definitions and a private little "universe"),= you have to understand those referenced technical terms first. Such as: 7.a. the Hierarchical Model 7.b. Normalisation; Normalised; Normalised Set, as it existed in 1970 when= Codd wrote his paper 7.c. Order, Ordered Since my explanations-before-reading are "weird" to you, I will refrain fro= m providing them, I will leave it for you to as a question after reading. = Please be specific. --- 8. --- > > ... but you seem to be missing the major section re *Order* and *Ordere= d* > So quote me a piece of that section, so that I can find it and understand > what you are talking about. You cannot follow my ordinary direction: > > Please read the entire section [1]; see if you come up with anything re= the Order and Ordered, as per dictionary definition that [I think] we have= agreed to. I will take it from there. There is a huge chunk missing. I have explained that *Order, Ordered*, is tightly bound to *Structured and= Normalised*. Normalised as in the RM, which includes Normalised as in the= HM. But you are in denial about that, so you call my explanation names, o= bviously because you do not understand it, and dismiss it. =20 But if you want to genuinely understand the RM, the "what I am talking abou= t", as you say you do, you cannot at the same time dismiss it. It is a gro= ss contradiction. In your single (hopefully you have just one) cranium. Y= ou are guaranteed to fail. =20 So if you want to stop failing at what you state you want to do "so that I = can find it and understand what you are talking about", you will need to: a. stop the behaviours that cause the failure (dismissal of my explanation= you do not understand) -- and try to understand them (or ask me questions) b. stop the behaviours that cause the failure (pretence of understanding t= he RM) -- read and understand the RM (or ask me questions) -- read up on the referenced technical terms (or ask me questions) ---- Hint. Do not use the Search facility, and serach for "order". That w= ill result in a robot finding a word. The task at hand is for you to under= stand [6.a]; holding that understanding in your mind, read the RM, looking = for the occurrences of the meaning of *Order, Ordered* (not the word) in th= e RM. ---- We can follow it in increments of one paragraph, or one sentence, if w= e have to. --- 9. --- > > >> 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 wasn't defining a "normal human", fool, I was defining a person capable o= f "normal human logic", as you requested. There is no point in evaluating = what I offered against one measure, against some other measure that was not= mentioned. But it is standard fare for the fragmented mind. Read again. = It is in the line above new term you introduce. Imbecile: Shopkeeper, I want six apples. Shopkeeper: Here you go, sir. Fresh picked, yesterday. Imbecile: But these are not oranges. Ok, fine. It was only an offer. Feel free to supply yours. And please com= ply with your own requirements re objectivity. ---- 10. ---- > > > 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 i= s. > > Clutching at straws, because nothing else you wrote was either? Let's get this straight. I attack an imbecile because they are pretending = knowledge. You somehow classify that as an answer to a question, one that = was not identified. I correct you: I state the attack-on-the-freak and the= answer-to-your-question are two separate things. If you read the post the= y are in two separate paragraphs. I state that the attack is not an answer= . You classify that as "Clutching at straws". Must be good drugs. ---- 11. ---- > [The RM is] a valuable but probably > imperfect proposition. Schizophrenics, phychotics, psychopaths, anti-social criminals, have a huge= fear of authorities. Since they fail completely to function in the real w= orld, they redefine words, terms, so that in their private little minds, th= ey appear to function; so that the authority is somehow the failure; and th= eir fragile concoction about a subject that themselves provde evidence that= they have no knowledge about, is somehow The Right One. CDT used to be for undamaged humans. ---- 12. ---- > > I offer those, because I do not think the absent agreement or definitio= n > > needs to hold up the progress of the thread. > > Trying to own the thread again? So arrogant. I am not trying any such thing. If you read the thread (as opposed to form= ing opinions about it, from your perspective), you might notice that I am a= nswering questions, issues raised, and they are *your* questions. "Trying = to own the thread" is your opinion, you perspective, you deal with it. It = is not my problem, I can't do anything about it, I can't "disown" the threa= d, because I don't own it. I suppose you have not noticed the arrogance of those who make conclusions = about what they clearly do not understand. Oh wait, you have a private def= inition for the word! ---- 13. ---- > Actually I think, and thought before I saw this post, God help your > clients. Stop lying. You have no belief in God, you do not pray. Only fully capabl= e humans with Ordered minds have that. > I wonder if I know any of them. None of my customers live on your paper route, chipmunk. The main point here is this. Stop worrying about what you personally, or I= personally, think. Keep it to your miserable self. Or flog it on the int= ernet and deal with the consequences. If you can't swallow it, do not dish= it out. =20 http://dilbert.com/strips/2014-03-02/ Keep the subjective to a minimum. I couldn't care less what imbeciles on C= DT think of me, I get more than enough accolades from people who matter. Y= our attacks (whether you admit them to be ad hominem or not), besides being= subjective drivel from one who has proved they cannot read and understand = either the RM, or technical notes about it, are impotent. You seem to appreciate objectivity. I hope you are using the public defini= tion. This is a technical forum (at least it used to be, in the good old d= ays, before the insane flooded it with their insane discussions about discu= ssion without discussing anything). So we are supposed to be dealing with = objective facts. Databases. The Relational Model. Objective facts about = those subjects, not the fantasies of the freaks who write them. =20 Try to maintain focus. If and when you take the next incremental step, I w= ill supply the next increment. Cheers Derek