Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?

Op maandag 2 februari 2015 16:09:05 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> Jan
>
> > On Monday, 2 February 2015 22:46:11 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I am getting a tiny bit tired of this dancing around the definition tree, which allows you to sit there in some unknown space (to me not science, and no, I am not about to let you redefine science to me), ALLOWing him to be this or that or purple or yellow but neither right nor wrong.

Once you stop redefining standard terminology, I will stop asking for definitions. And as I said, I am perfectly happy to allow you your own definition of the word "science". Just as long as you are clear that this is not science as it is usually defined by scientists.

> > You have yet to give evidence for that claim.
>
> I don't have to do any such thing, I have already explained why. The law stands for forty five years. This freak (or some freak who wrote the harry potter novel that he is using, came after that. So it is his job, the authors job, not my job, to explain why the freak is teaching something that goes against the law.

Indeed it is, if that is what he was doing. But that you have not demonstrated yet. That should be fairly easy to do. You claimed that his use of the term functional dependency is non-standard. So all you have to do is point to a particular statement that he made in his lecture about functional dependencies that is not consistent with the standard definition.

The floor is yours.

• Jan Hidders