Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?

> On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:10:09 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the 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.

Ok.

We are progressing very slowly.

Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.

I know that he inflates the value of his knowledge, whatever he is going to teach, by mentioning databases that are in 1NF. I know that he gives the well-known theoretical "definition" for what is suggested as 3NF. But what you do not know is, that definition is the usual, stupid, fractured, fragmented, definition that is only relevant to theoreticians.

It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.

It cannot be applied to anything, except a bunch of duplicated numbers on a grid(, and even those rows of numbers are illegal, misrepresented.) That fragment of a "definition" cannot be applied to anything in the real world, not even to a well-chosen set of numbers in a grid.

He is a fraud, because in the course (read the title "Relational Database Theory", which existed as Codd gave, since 1970), he fails to give the original definition, which can be used anywhere and everywhere in the physical universe, and gives only the fragmented "definition" that can be used in the dreamtime, on the back of the eye-lids.

I don't even have a problem if he ONLY teaches the fragment, but then he MUST change title of the unit, the title of the course. It could be something like "Alternate Theories about Relational Theory", or "How to Blink Well and Deliver Nothing" (noting that he plugs implementation quality and fear at the outset). But as long as the title is "Relational Database Theory", which is well-known and well-understood, as a package that Codd delivered, and that has been furthered since then, if he teaches anything other than that that, he is committing a fraud.

Separate to that, under the title "Functional Dependency", he is teaching a small fraction of FDs, as per the original definition. So he is committing a second fraud.

I wouldn't have a problem if he taught that crap under a title like "Permutations of Possible Dependencies where the Key is Excised", or "Shakespeare's Sonnets Expressed as Relations". But if he teaches anything other than the original definition under the title "Functional Dependency", he is committin g fraud.

How would you feel, if you knew and loved a Volkswagen Golf,; chose a good black one from an advertisement on the internet from a car yard; paid your 10,000 Euros,; and when you went to pick it up, they gave you a photograph of a red golf ? And when you get upset, they say, well, a black one and a red one are all the same, it is just a photograph. And when you say, you bought a car, not a photo, they say, no, you bought a photo, a car would not fit on your screen.

It is the kind of "logic" that you get from thieves, gypsies.

He needs to be locked up, either in prison or in an asylum.

To protect society from this kind of crime.

And sure, if he did n't create it, if he is just a robot, then there are two more actions: he is committing a third fraud, misrepresenting himself as a "professor" who knows the subject matter, and he can cry that he is a victim of books. The second action is to hunt down sucj authors and hang them upside-down on the old city walls. And to burn their books.

Cheers
Derek Received on Mon Feb 02 2015 - 16:53:03 CET