Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?

Tegiri

> On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:43:34 UTC+11, Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
>
> Certain poster on this group is emphasizing how theoretical stuff such as normalization theory has no real impact in practice.

1. Just in case you might be talking about me (emphasis on "might"). I said no such thing. Normalisation is essential in practice. Normalisation is a science. As usual, in this space, the theoretical portion of the science is a small fraction of it. Practitioners practice the science, not the theory. Normalisation, if viewed or known *only* as the theory, is very fractured, isolated, skewed, a collection of fragments. Eg. as a collection of the NF definitions.

And half of the NF definitions are pure pig poop, straight out of the sow's backside. By schiz, and or schiz. Undamaged humans do not need them.

2. And in the case that you might be talking about another "certain poster" (emphasis on "might"), your statements are unfair, a false representation of what he posted. I am not suggesting you are dishonest, just that you are viewing something in the physical universe from the tiny /alien/ lens of theory, your religion, as you have demonstrated, and thus unconsciously portraying it in a skewed as simplistic manner. I don't have a problem, none at all, if you do that.

But when you post that skewed view in the physical universe, then I have to respond.

If you care to read the rest of that post, you might notice, the gentleman gave concrete instructions re Normalisation, without labouring through the fragmented theory, which AFAIC, was the perfect pitch to the level of the seeker.

Please be advised that when I teach RDb Design, Normalisation is a major subject, and I approach it as science. The first thing I do is excise the abnormal "normal form" definitions which are marketed by the schizophrenics that wrote them, retaining the three Normal Forms that undamaged human beings need. Then I teach the science, complete with exercises that use several tables (frauds use single "relations" to construct their Straw Man arguments; papers; mathematical poofs). Then I teach the two scientific Normal Forms that are /informally/ but scientifically (at least to those who have their feet on the ground) defined in the Relational Model (the concrete Codd RM, not the 42 religious artefacts).

Sum total in the scientific universe: the five scientific Normal Forms, and the rest, a pile of poop, in the toilet.

Sum total in the far reaches of the galaxy, your precious theoreticians religious position: the huge pile of poop, and three Normal Forms which are only slightly understood. That, of course, has a crippling effect.

The fact that theorists in our field have been unable to collect the bag of "normal forms" that they themselves have defined, into one coherent whole, that can be used as a method, is evidence that they are clueless about the /exercise/ of Normalisation, that they only understand the fragmented bits, and that, only in isolation. Like blind men defining as elephant.

The fact that the theorists continue to define schizophrenic "normal forms", the purpose of which is to justify Record Filing Systems that are non-relational, in forty five years, stands as evidence that the theorists in our field understand only Record Filing systems.

The fact that the theorists continue to define schizophrenic "normal forms", but have been utterly unable to /formally/ define the two NFs in the RM, in forty five years, stands as evidence that our field is devoid of theoreticians who understand the RM, they are completely impotent at articulating it. It is no wonder that they count fish in the sea.

I am happy to take Normalisation (science vs alien theory) up, but we should start a separate thread.

> That is because this is a field which patiently awaits its time.

Waiting for the Second Coming, I suppose.

Promises, promises, promises. But no delivery. Religion again. All gas and no excreta makes the act of sitting on the toilet extremely boring, it is a wasteful use of time.

And to be complete, you are not talking about our field, you are talking about the tiny fraction of it that is occupied by theoreticians. Who, by virtue of the evidence, have produced nothing that has benefited the field (the whole field, not the fraction) in forty five years.

> I would rather discuss this, rather than importance (or lack of thereof) of nulls.

There is a current thread, The Null Problem is a Non-issue, sitting there with no progress. I am about to close it as confirmed, given that the priests can't deny the concrete facts. I would be happy to discuss it, especially if you remove your mitre and leave the bishopric for a few minutes. I agree, the importance (or lack thereof) of nulls is not the main issue.

Cheers
Derek   Received on Mon Feb 02 2015 - 00:29:25 CET