Re: Atomic Structures

Vladimr

Thanks for your response.

> On Thursday, 26 May 2016 08:34:09 UTC+10, vldm10 wrote:
> > I think you will agree that FOPC was the result of Boole and others, and
> > Codd created the First, the one and only Relational Algebra.
>
> Here on this site you can find, what George Boole has done:
> https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15114/15114-pdf.pdf
>
> > the RM is founded on FOPC.
>
> The RM can not be founded on FOPC. Let me name just a few of the reasons:
>
> 1.
> I will repeat the following text from my post, because it is important:
> So, in simple terms: the predicates are linguistic constructs and predicates
> correspond to concepts. Concepts are mental constructs and concepts "make"
> sets.

Yes, that has already been confirmed, we already agree on that.

> However the predicates (concepts) does not identify objects. Note that
> I wrote above that the extension (set) is an object. As names denote objects
> then the extension (or set) has a name. As you can see from this text,
> concepts are dominant, not predicates. Another thing that can be seen from
> this text is that many objects (entities) are used. I have introduced the
> theory of identification in which identification of objects play an
> important role. This further leads to the conceptual level.
>
> In this, very short text; I explained that E. Codd did not understand some
> important and basic things. Moreover, I have not noticed that Codd wrote
> something about concepts, relationships between concepts and predicates,
> concepts and sets, thoughts, relationships between thoughts and language,
> formal theory of spoken languages, proof theory for propositional logic and
> predicate logic, the relationship between mind and logic, ...

No idea where you get that info. Evidently you have little idea of what a FOPC Predicate is.

FOPC has variables (objects)
FOPC has relations (two variables, binary Predicates) FOPC has cardinality (objects)

Codd doesn’t have to write about it, he just uses it. As detailed in my previous post, a paper does not have to explain the pre-existing concepts that it uses, only the new concepts. Repeating something that has been proved to be stupid does not make it more real, it makes you even more stupid. Post-Codd writers such as Date fall into the same category of stupid, for precisely the same reason. For a definition of the referenced concepts, you need to go to those papers, not the one in which they are referenced.

It is as stupid as faulting the butcher for not defining how cattle are raised. You go to the butcher for meat, for how to prepare a carcase; you go to the farmer for raising cattle.

> 2.
> Here is another reason for the conceptual level:
> Kurt Gödel, 1944:
> “By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions)
> are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals,
> relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. (with a
> similar hierarchy for extensions), and that sentences of the form: " a has
> the property φ ", " b bears the relation Rto c ", etc. are meaningless, if
> a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together. Mixed types (such as
> classes containing individuals and classes as elements) and therefore also
> transfinite types (such as the class of all classes of finite types) are
> excluded. That the theory of simple types suffices for avoiding also the
> epistemological paradoxes is shown by a closer analysis of these. (Cf.
> Ramsey 1926 and Tarski 1935, p. 399)."
>
> Note that between terms from this Gödel's text and terms from "entity
> relationship model", the following links are valid:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> “Individuals” = entities
> “Properties of individuals” = properties of entities
> “Relations between individuals” = relationships
> “Properties of such relations” = properties of relationships
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Note that this Gödel's text was written 26 years before RM, 32 years before
> ER model.

Sure.

Aristotle does a much better job (more complete, more defined) of classification, conceptualisation, etc.

He wrote 2,294 years before Gödel.

> Note that this Gödel text is about conceptual level, not about
> predicates.

That may be “true” to the mind that deals with fragments.

But you have already stated indirectly that predicates “should” contain concepts.

One day, you might connect the dots: FOPC Predicates already contain concepts.

> ===============================================================
> Note that a man does not see an object as a collection of molecules, atoms,
> and sub particles. People do not have the capacity nor do they need
> something like this. They observe objects as a set of properties - it is by
> using mental, not by physical means.

Yes. All that was defined by Aristotle 2,366 years ago. It was used as the basis of Western Thought until the Modernist ear (1870), after which it was suppressed.

> 3.
> As far as I know Codd never mentioned Frege's name. Regarding Predicate
> calculus, Codd was writing about his compatriot B. Russell. However, keep in
> mind that Frege founded Predicate Calculus. B. Russell has done nothing in
> the predicate calculus. So I am not obsessed with Frege. Rather I would say
> that I am writing about facts.
> As far as I know, Frege experienced personal tragedy. He had two sons, and
> they both died. Also Frege's wife died first.(These data should be checked.)
> I mean that truth should be said.
> Your assertion that Predicate Logic is old 2000 years and begins from
> Aristotle is not true. (The same assertion you can find in C. Date books. In
> his book “Database in depth” on page 169, he wrote: “Elements of predicate
> logic go back well over 2000 years, at least as far as Aristotle (384 - 322
> BCE ). But Date does not understand Frege’s Predicate Logic, which is the
> real predicate logic.

One of the very few statements Date makes that is correct.

If you study what is known as Formal Logic, which was first written by Aristotle, you will find all (not some, but all) the elements of FOPC. Except that Aristotle did not use that label, which is a contemporary one. So the evidence exists, and it is irrefutable. Denying evidence, historical facts, eg. Aristotle, makes you schizophrenic on one count. Obsessing about a carefully chosen set of facts (in isolation from the denied facts), eg. Frege; Frege; Frege, makes you schizophrenic on a second count.

> =================================================================
> Aristotle’s predicates are very different from Frege’s predicates.

Yes, Frege’s are incomplete and ill-thought. Aristotle’s are complete, unchanged and useful today (Boole added a bit of articulation, just as I have added articulation to FOPC Predicates). Eg. Aristotle’s logic is easily translated into FOPC (the real thing, not the “FOPC” that you know, which is whatever you say it is).

> Therefore
> this claim that today’s Predicate Logic is old 2000 years is heavy
> disinformation.

No. The disinformation is your inability to check evidenced facts. The facts do not go away just because you deny them. Ignorant people today make all sorts of claims that they invented things that were invented 2,366 years ago. Or that some nutcase invented it in 1944. It is matter of how much history you are aware of, vs how much history you are ignorant of, or that you deny.

> =================================================================
>
> 4.
> We need the conceptual model when we have relationships among entities.

Yes. Agreed. We already have it.

We don’t need the conceptual level to have relations, we can have relations at any level (already explained in previous posts): conceptual; idiot “logical”; true logical; physical; any other level you can come up with.

1. Read the RM (not Date’s books on the RM, which is only 5% of the RM, and in violent contradiction of the RM).
2. Then notice that FOPC is the foundation of the RM (referenced, not defined).
3. Then read FOPC (the definition). The “P” in FOPC stands for Predicates
4. You will notice that FOPC is complete, it has concepts; variables; cardinality; relations; etc. But due to the blindness of Modern writers, FOPC is not fully articulated

— I did invite you to email me, such that I can provide a full articulation of FOPC Predicates that I use in the implementation of Relational Databases (100% RM compliant; 100% FPOC Predicates), but you have not taken up the offer. Therefore you will have to read the material that is available to the public, all [a][b][c][d] is available.

e. Then perhaps obtain my full articulation of FOPC Predicates

> 5.
> In his paper “Extending the database relational model to capture more
> meaning” in section 4, E. Codd introduced “entities”. This imply ER
> conceptual model and mapping between ERM and RM.
> This Codd’s paper has some mistakes of fundamental character. Given the
> enormous importance of the issues that this paper attempts to solves, in my
> opinion, the publication of this paper is scandalous. Let me mention just
> "invisible surrogate key" and that Codd did not notice the problem of
> "history". Work with the mapping between two data models, is not possible
> without the solution of the problem known as "history".

Yes, well, those of us who have been actually using the genuine RM (as opposed to discussing it theoretically, as opposed to implementing it using anti-relational books such as Date’s), have ironed out all those “discrepancies”. Eg. I have already declared that I reject anything outside the RM that contradicts the RM. That applies to all authors, including a couple of Codd’s papers.

Simply put, the RM defines Relational Keys; the 1971 paper and RM/T introduces surrogates (not “surrogate key”, which is a contradiction, and thus cannot exist), which are anti-relational. Rejected as such. By way of explanation, Codd did not receive acceptance for the RM from 1970, it took ten years of fighting at the academic level. In those arguments, he was seduced by Date and Fagin, who were set up as to assist him, but in evidenced fact, were subverting him. The result is masses of Fagin and Date papers that contradict the RM, and heh heh, a couple of Codd papers that do.

The RM handles history and temporal database issues completely and perfectly. I have hundreds of such tables, in dozens of sites. Being a theoretical paper, it does not give implementation details, and that is not an error or an omission (the paper is about the RM, not database design, not table design, not Normalisation outside the Relational Normal Form). It is for capable implementers to read and understand the RM, and then to implement it, using good engineering principles. The high-end SQL vendors supply all the necessary capabilities.  

> > vi.
> > >
> > What is the truth-value of the following sentence:
> >
> > This sentence is false.
> >
> >
> > That is the typical behaviour of a sub-human freak; an entertainer; a
> > magician, the pig-poop-eaters who write the books that you read. I did
> > not expect that from you, Vladimir.
>
>
> This above sentence is famous.

Yes, I know that, fool.

> Based on this problem, A. Tarski has started
> work on the definition of truth in 1930. In 1950 he did the so-called “truth
> in model” and he started one of the most important mathematical theory, it
> is Model Theory. Usually the best theorists from database theory are using
> the model theory.

I am not against Tarski. I am against ignorance. Many modern papers have been written about the famous but stupid sentence. Here is a summary, a selection. Yes, there are literally hundreds of idiots who write famous papers: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/

Aristotle did not have that problem, he scoffed at it. So do I. The modernists are limited to fragments (detailed in my previous post). I accept that by using Modern Formal Logic that that sentence is a magical mystical mysterious “puzzle”, and that hundreds of Modern papers have been written about it.

Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, and I have no such limitations. In addition to Formal logic, we have Material Logic, which is suppressed by the Modernists.

> > Those of us who are not crippled have Material Logic. No, I am not going to give you a tutorial, get a good book, printed before 1870, and read it.

The statement fails on two separate counts: a. That what it signifies, and what it is declared to signify, contradict each other. Therefore the sentence is invalid as a proposition. It fails logic. b. That the premise is false

Separately, any undamaged logical human (excludes Modern “theoreticians” such as you; Tarksi; etc), even one who is not trained in Logic, can perceive “intuitively” (actually logically, but one that may not be articulated) that there is something violently wrong with that sentence. It is a nullity, it cancels itself, therefore the statements does not exist, therefore there is nothing to prove or disprove, nothing to write one hundred papers about. But the enslaved Modernists, pitifully, have done so.

> A. Tarski has started work on the definition of truth in 1930.

That is Modernist psychobabble, pig poop.

1. Truth was defined, in roughly 60 layers, in 350 BC. Specifically objective truth. Truth is the object of Science (not Modern “science”, the object of which is subjective and isolated “truth”).
2. The Logic that was required to determine truth was also defined in 350 BC.
3. Truth was further defined and reinforced by St Thomas Aquinas in 1270.

Therefore Tarski and others, in pitiful ignorance of established thought, started a new form of Modernist “thought”, as if thought was invented by them. Good for those creatures that are inbred, that are schizophrenic, that eat pig-poop, that create something out of nothing. Not so good for humans. Of course those humans who deny 2,366 years of history, and who swallow the filth that the freaks publish, will be enslaved by their ways of “thinking”.

> Today, semantic (recursive) definition of truth given by A. Tarski, is
> generally accepted.

Yes. By idiots who think that thought started in the Modernist era, imbeciles who do not read history, schizophrenics who deny historical facts, the intellectually enslaved, who read only the books published by pig-poop-eaters.

But not by uncontaminated humans. We reject such papers as pathetic Modernist drivel. Western Thought did not start with freaks such as Tarski; Russell; Kant (as they would have you believe). The great city states of Europe were not built by them, or by the “western thought” that they say they invented, that is an anachronism, easily proved (except to the enslaved). The great city states of Europe were built on Western Thought, which was founded by Aristotle, and used throughout the 2,220 years (350 BC to 1870) of Western history.

> I assume that you are not interested in this topic.

You don’t have to assume anything, I have written clearly what I will and will not respond to, in my previous post.

> With this post I will finish this topic because this is my final opinion.

Ok. Which proves you have not read the material I pointed out to you, and thus you remain in the same state of abject ignorance, regarding the very subject you postulate about.

Those who are not enslaved use Aristotle; St Thomas; Logic (both Formal and Material); FOPC; Predictes; Codd, and write Relational database.

Those who are enslaved think that history started in the Modernist era (1870), operate in pathetic ignorance, wring their hands, argue endlessly amongst themselves about subjects that were closed 2,366 years ago, and never produce a database, let alone a Relational one.

You have proved, by virtue of the evidence of your own posts, which category you exist in.

Cheers
Derek Received on Sat Jun 11 2016 - 02:57:39 CEST