X-Received: by 10.43.83.196 with SMTP id ah4mr17430026icc.25.1422889808436; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:10:08 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.91.21 with SMTP id y21mr216862qgd.8.1422889808407; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:10:08 -0800 (PST) Path: news.cambrium.nl!textnews.cambrium.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!138.195.8.3.MISMATCH!news.ecp.fr!news.glorb.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!hl2no7632434igb.0!news-out.google.com!q4ni26qan.0!nntp.google.com!bm13no5284092qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:10:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <63393ec9-6afb-4ee8-b2c7-ae0186d4e227@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> <63393ec9-6afb-4ee8-b2c7-ae0186d4e227@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ? From: Jan Hidders Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:10:08 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2776 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1765053777 Xref: news.cambrium.nl Op maandag 2 februari 2015 12:46:11 UTC+1 schreef Jan Hidders: > 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= back 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 comple= te 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? > >=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 wr= ong. >=20 > I don't think it is wrong, just less thorough than I prefer, and I certai= nly don't agree that it is already established that it is wrong.=20 A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give th= e definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to = the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I = withdraw my criticism. -- Jan Hidders