Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?

Jan

> On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:02:23 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> >
> > Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
> >
> > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
>
> Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?

First, thank you for stopping at point 1, and dealing with that.

Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wrong.

Look I would love to answer your question, but even the first few words would be getting into definitions. And I have stated flatly here, and elsewhere, that I accept the established definitions in the science of the field, and here we are dealing with definitions that have been established for forty five years.

So I would ask you to please think about the fact that I am a practitioner who is very happy with the law, who is not about to change definitions at the drop of a petal. As a teacher, please explain to me, a dumb implementer, who clearly thinks it is wrong, by virtue of established definitions, in the physical universe, and has thirty five years experience (of that established forty five years) proving that the established definitions are RIGHT (reinforced), why this new undefined (paraphrasing your words) proposition of "functional dependency" is it NOT WRONG ?

If you don't mind, pitch at that level. Now both you and the darling doctor are going against forty five years of established science, so it is up to you to explain why such an act is NOT WRONG. It is not up to people in that established forty five years, to prove that the undefined, the hilarious, is WRONG.

I would say that in any scientific course, teaching a concept without defining it, is highly suspect, and not worthy of a professional teacher, but hey, theory in this space is not science. Unidentified Flying Objects, Undefined concepts, that are proposed to exist contrary to science, all pass for course material. This is one example, with hard evidence.

I am trying to give you the concrete that exists in the physical universe, at the moment this unidentified flying object came into it.

I have said, standing in this concrete physical universe, ///I/// do not understand.

Which textbook ?

The fact that it is in a textbook does not make it right. They are printing pure pig poop as textbooks, and teaching them at universities (which might -- emphasise "might" -- be the reason database theoreticians are crippled).

When I went to college, thirty nine years ago, our professors only taught what they really understood. There were some who were really good at some unit and who would not teach some other unit, because THEY thought they were weak. I recall, we begged one lecturer to teach an unit because he was excellent at teaching and the professor teaching that unit was excellent in the material but hopeless at teaching. He wouldn't. None of them had their eyes glazed over. None of them taught undefined objects. Computer Science was science. Those days are long gone. Now theory is non-science.

Likewise for textbooks. If a professor did not accept a textbook, he would not use it. If any one used a textbook as a script, without fully understanding the material, if anyone relied on "oh, it is in the textbook". We would have laughed him off as a robot. Those days are long gone. Now they read from textbooks as if the textbook is scripture, without understanding, without assenting. Again, the is (by definition) religion, not science. The mind has been displaced, it is now textbook-slaves teaching slavery. Nothing to do with science. Notice the glazed eyes of a robot. Notice the difficulty getting his point across.

I am very grateful to God that I had my secondary and tertiary education before the education system was destroyed.

Over to you. You are telling me the new proposal for "functional dependency", that contradicts forty five years of established science and definitions, presented without definition (he would have to do that in order to commit the fraud), is NOT WRONG. Please explain why, using science, not "scripture". You and he are making the assault on science, it is up to you to justify it. My colleagues and I have already shot it out of the sky, and pissed ourselves laughing at him.

Cheers
Derek Received on Sun Feb 01 2015 - 23:34:49 CET