Fraud Number 4: Bob Badour

[Cimode]

This one seemed right at first...But finally an ignorant

BB doing mathematics...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Non sequitur does not require a false premise. Sound logical derivations
> require valid logic and true axioms. However, one can create a non
> sequitur without any axioms or logic at all:
> Lupins grow in my ditch, therefore one should always wear a seatbelt
> when driving an orange convertible backward.
> Memory management units map linear address spaces onto linear memories
> therefore logical structures in computers are bidimensional.
> 'Twas brillig therefore the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

//Me//
Don't express yourself about mathematics when you don't understand a
thing about it...You have redefined in 2 lines the meaning of Axiom as
it was defined from Antiques times till now...

There is no such thing as a *true* or *false* axiom.... Axiom is an
*admitted* fact that is reasonable to accept to allow emitting of
hypothesis that you demonstrate logically to establish theorems
exclusively based on the initial axiom. In a word you admit Axiom
period then you use Axioms to demonstrate Theorems after they were
hypothesis. At no point an Axiom is not a boolean...Your
misunderstanding of what axiom makes the rest of your post pure idiotic

ignorance...

BB doing logic (I spare you the insults part not as interresting as the
following)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(He get pissed when I disagreed with his statement that SQL Table were
multidimensional
at physical inmemory (RAM) physical level...He gest pissed tells me to
go *fuck myself*...

Told about a hundred times this fraud that memory physical projections
in RAM can only be bidimensional or tridmensional because of current
RAM adressing schemes at memory controller level...He persists and
signs it's multidimensional....claiming I need to reinvent a
computational model to support my claims...

STILL WAITING FOR HIS RESPONSE TO THIS POST

Just read and enjoy...
********************************************************************************************
I know BB won't probably read this thread as he probably used his
magical *twit filter* to discard my post but I want to point out out
the issue of his misunderstanding and bad faith on this thread.

The object of the argument was that I considered physical
representation of SQL table on all current implementation as purely
bidimensional or tridimensional depending on the adressing scheme used
at physical level of RAM implementation. Mister BB has advocated the
opposite stating that physical implementation are multidimensional and
that stated that RAM adresses are linear.

I state that BB is wrong in saying RAM SQL tables representations are
multidimensional...

A multidimensional physical representation of a N dimension relvar
supposes it can be represented through an N-ary coordinate system
equivalent at physical level. Otherly said, any SQL datum location on
that physical memory should have then an N-ary system of coordinates to

locate it in RAM.

Such system does not exist. Most RAM architectures memory is addressed

with a 32-bit address (or 36-bit if PAE is enabled). But those
addresses are translated by the memory controller to a physical address

that identifies which bank, row, and column the memory actually resides

in. In latest Dual Core Opteron CPU's the memory controller has been
directly integrated into the CPU which allows direct physical
referencing without need of translation and took away the need for
using linear adressing.

That proves 2 things:
> When stating that RAM is linear, BB has proved that he
ignores what
a physical memory architecture is. He proved he does not make a
difference between a logical linear adressing scheme at CPU level and a

physical adressing scheme at RAM (memory controller). I clearly
pointed out this confusion to him and he chose to persist.
> To be considered multidimensional at physical level a SQL
Table
should have all the datum embodying it located through an N-ary
physical adressing scheme as opposed to a trinary system.

For instance, considering the following SQL Table

Datum1, Datum2, Datum3, Datum4
Datum5, Datum6, Datum7, Datum8
Datum9, Datum10, Datum11, Datum12

In a multidimensional physical RAM, it should be possible to represent
and locate it at least through N physical coordinates.

--> MEMORY CONTROLER

locates Datum1 at (A1, A2, A3, A4...A-N)
locates Datum2 at (A1, A6, A7, A4...A-N)
locates Datum3 at (A1, A2, A3, A4...A-N)
and so forth....

Needless to such a physical RAM system does not exist. Therefore, it
proves SQL Table is NOT multidimensional at physical level. Its
representation and handling is necessarily determined by the RAM
adressing scheme used by the memory controler.

To make sure I was not missing anything which could have proved me
wrong I have re-read the thread and even checked BB link to try to
understand his point of view. It was a pure waste of time as any of
the reading done has been relevant to subject treated.

Considering the following:
> BB claimed that I insulted people without proving it. He used this occasion to tell me "go fuck myself". As a response, I have stated that I would only respond to his non insulting posts.
> By respect, I have clearly provided responses to all questions brought by the so-called *educator(s)*. The opposite is not true.
> I have pointed out to at several occasions the level of confusion at BB and demonstrated through logical argumentation. His only response was insults and irrelevant comments.

I consider that unless he acknowledges he was wrong, which I strongly
doubt, or proves me wrong responding to this question, he just has
lost all credibility I was willing to give him. Listenning. Probable
answers:

[Tony D]

Ummm, I hate to point this out, but *how many* number 4s ? Can't you
count ?

I seem to hear someone being hoist by their own petard, somewhere ...

[Cimode]

Please read and discuss only above...Discussing me has not interest to
this group///...

[Cimode]

To make you happy
Subject should copy Fraud Number 5: Bob Badour (sorry for the TYPO)

[Pickie]

Well, that's true. But then again, do we REALLY want to discuss the
other 4/5 people either? I mean, obviously Cimode wants to, because he
set up this thread.

BUT

I propose to hijack the thread into a long and boring off-topic
discussion of all the possible things Cimode might have wrong with him.
And flames, Flames, FLAMES!

On the other hand, maybe I should just trunc

[Cimode]

Pickie wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Please read and discuss only above...Discussing me has not interest to
> > this group///...
> > Tony D wrote:
> > > Ummm, I hate to point this out, but *how many* number 4s ? Can't you
> > > count ?
> > >
> > > I seem to hear someone being hoist by their own petard, somewhere ...
>
> Well, that's true. But then again, do we REALLY want to discuss the
> other 4/5 people either? I mean, obviously Cimode wants to, because he
> set up this thread.

The ony way I set up this thread is to expose some people and put their
ignorance and incoherence about RM concepts by proving their nonsense
to large audiences...I do not really car about who they are but about
the nonsense the state.

> BUT
>
> I propose to hijack the thread into a long and boring off-topic
> discussion of all the possible things Cimode might have wrong with him.
> And flames, Flames, FLAMES!

If actually interested with *FLAMES*, most of them will be posted by
the ignorants in the threads where they will expose their
nonsense...This is just a wall where I gather nice quote of theirs...;
Don't worry the flames will be present in the other threads

[Cimode]

These guys told me that PICKIES and PICK were basically pure
nonsense...I do not know PICK...What is it exactly? (Thought to ask
because of you nickname)...Thanks for the info...

[Tony D]

Pickie wrote:
> On the other hand, maybe I should just trunc

I would answer that, but I don't kn

[Pickie]

I tried to answer that in a previous post, but I got shot to pieces.
You _could_ do just a _teensy_ amount of research and look for it -
thread title was something along the lines of "MV vs RM".

Don't worry, as it's not truly a DBMS, you can stay completely ignorant
of it and still express any damn fool opinion about it.

[mAsterdam]

I hate it when people don't finish their

[Tony D]

I know - it's really ann

[Bob Badour]

Tony D wrote:

All I can say is it's a good thing he included my name in the title of
the thread or I would have no logical identity. That would really irr

[Cimode]

Bob Badour wrote:

> All I can say is it's a good thing he included my name in the title of
> the thread or I would have no logical identity. That would really irr

What should worry about losing is not your logical identity but the
intellectual *integrity* (both meanings meant) you have lost because of
your arrogant pride.

[Cimode]

Cimode wrote:
> LOL!!!
> I have to add that beautiful comment to BB's FEW picked up
> on another thread....
>
> > > BB wrote:
I am not sure value is a concept that has meaning in pure mathematics.

After getting exposed he immediately corrected himself...