Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?

Op zondag 1 februari 2015 23:34:51 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> 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.

I don't think it is wrong, just less thorough than I prefer, and I certainly don't agree that it is already established that it is wrong. You have yet to give evidence for that claim.

> 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.

Established where? In textbooks? In scientific publications? In practice? For the last one it is my own experience that there not all normalisation terminology, not even the word normalisation itself, is used always in a consistent, precise and well-defined manner. So that can hardly be called a well-defined notion. So that leaves only the first two, and with that the presenter is consistent.

Btw. you seem be using again the word "science" where you actually mean "engineering". No problem, as long you are clear about what you mean.

> 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 ?

I did not call you a dumb implementer. I don't think you are. But as far as I can tell the presenter is using the term "functional dependency" consistently with the usual definition in normalisation theory in literature and text books. At what point in his presentation do you think he deviates from that definition? And is the definition that you prefer actually different from that definition?

> 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.

That depends. All we know is that he did not define it during the lecture. He probably is using a text book that defines it more precisely. So it is not necessarily a problem.

> 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).

*shrug* Sure, you are free to disagree with the usefulness of the standard text book definitions and those that are used in scientific publications, peer-reviewed and written by the authorities in the domain, et cetera. But that does not justify calling university professors frauds just because they use those in their lectures.

• Jan Hidders