X-Received: by 10.42.254.135 with SMTP id ne7mr17271990icb.30.1422877570738; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 03:46:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.30.118 with SMTP id c109mr214604qgc.15.1422877570704; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 03:46:10 -0800 (PST) Path: news.cambrium.nl!textnews.cambrium.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.208.113.1.MISMATCH!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.ripco.com!news.glorb.com!hl2no5555125igb.0!news-out.google.com!q4ni25qan.0!nntp.google.com!v8no5717934qal.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 03:46:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4fcace2f-e767-4beb-8c54-0a7543b2fd30@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=145.94.176.92; posting-account=i7Ak-QoAAABlJ1qBkr1tS-dBPg_3Ujft NNTP-Posting-Host: 145.94.176.92 References: <61044dae-51c9-43d4-87f9-1e12e0e3b15e@googlegroups.com> <0f9dea1d-36e1-4378-93a4-cb790a57c893@googlegroups.com> <4fcace2f-e767-4beb-8c54-0a7543b2fd30@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <63393ec9-6afb-4ee8-b2c7-ae0186d4e227@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ? From: Jan Hidders Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:46:10 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.cambrium.nl Op zondag 1 februari 2015 23:34:51 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem: > Jan >=20 > > 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: > > >=20 > > > Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me b= ack up. > > >=20 > > > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ? > >=20 > > 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 b= e able to make your accusations a bit more concrete? >=20 > First, thank you for stopping at point 1, and dealing with that. >=20 > Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wron= g. I don't think it is wrong, just less thorough than I prefer, and I certainl= y 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 w= ould be getting into definitions. And I have stated flatly here, and elsew= here, that I accept the established definitions in the science of the field= , and here we are dealing with definitions that have been established for f= orty five years. Established where? In textbooks? In scientific publications? In practice? F= or the last one it is my own experience that there not all normalisation te= rminology, not even the word normalisation itself, is used always in a cons= istent, precise and well-defined manner. So that can hardly be called a wel= l-defined notion. So that leaves only the first two, and with that the pres= enter is consistent. Btw. you seem be using again the word "science" where you actually mean "en= gineering". 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 practitione= r 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 implement= er, who clearly thinks it is wrong, by virtue of established definitions, i= n the physical universe, and has thirty five years experience (of that esta= blished forty five years) proving that the established definitions are RIGH= T (reinforced), why this new undefined (paraphrasing your words) propositio= n of "functional dependency" is it NOT WRONG ? =20 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" consist= ently with the usual definition in normalisation theory in literature and t= ext books. At what point in his presentation do you think he deviates from = that definition? And is the definition that you prefer actually different f= rom that definition? > I would say that in any scientific course, teaching a concept without def= ining 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 n= ot necessarily a problem. > The fact that it is in a textbook does not make it right. They are print= ing pure pig poop as textbooks, and teaching them at universities (which mi= ght -- emphasise "might" -- be the reason database theoreticians are crippl= ed). *shrug* Sure, you are free to disagree with the usefulness of the standard = text book definitions and those that are used in scientific publications, p= eer-reviewed and written by the authorities in the domain, et cetera. But t= hat does not justify calling university professors frauds just because they= use those in their lectures. -- Jan Hidders