Fraud Number 2: J M Davitt

[Cimode]

As BB's idiots keep diverting debate to my person, instead of adressing
RM issues I pointed out...I will begin quoting some of their posts to
demonstrate their incoherence, ignorance or both...I will let the
people judge for themselves...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEGIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//JM Davitt// reponds to a post made where he gives his exposes his
ignorance of relvar type concept...

> This isn't really much of a stretch: For example, two scalar type
> variables must be of the same type if we wish to do arithmetic with
> them. Limiting ourselves to integers for this discussion, both scalar
> variable types must hold data of integer types.

//Me// -->
What a stupid idiotic statement!!!

So basically what you say is that it is not possible to add a value
drawn from a sub domain1 of integers defining type1 to some other value

drawn from sub domain2 of integers defining type2....? Or do you
consider type1 = type2 no matter what?
Here is the proof that you have no clue about RM and mathematical
domain concepts....They are essential to understand RM...

--> As you can see, this ignorant states that arithmetic operation on
integers can be done if and only if the variables are of one possible
type integer...

--> BUT he persists and signs...Adding more ignorance and bringing in
supertype and subtype concepts...(probably to ellude the question)
which have nothing to do with relvar type...

//Me//
it's a matter that you wrote a totally false statement stating that 2
scalar types MUST be of same type to allow arithmetic operations
between them adn I prove you wrong with sound reasonning...You are just

to proud or to idotic to recognize it...

//JM Davitt//
> I really don't want to get into sub types and super types and whether
> operations defined on rationals work on integers.

//Me//
subtypes and supertype have NOTHING to do with the basic definition of
a relation type...

//JM Davitt//
> to use words like "promotion" or "implicit conversions" because they
> would either add confusion or require elucidation.

//Me//
Here another proof of your confusion...."implicit conversion" they are
totally related to the implementation layer of SQL and are NOTHING in
RM...

[Cimode]

Still waiting for his response...He just ran away like chicken...

[J M Davitt]

Number 2, eh?

Guess I'll just have to try harder.

[Pickie]

J M Davitt wrote:
> Number 2, eh?
>
> Guess I'll just have to try harder.

Since you didn't respond in Cimode's 17 minute window, I guess you will
have to live with staying as number 2.

At least we now have an answer to Patrick McGoohan's question "Who is
number one?"

[J M Davitt]

That's right! The Number 6 slot is already filled.
There was, apparently, a tie for fourth, so Lucky
should be next out the gate. I can hardly wait!

[Cimode]

It's fun how ignorants jump to entertainment tone when they get
exposed...Still waiting for responses on the nonsense qutoes you
produced...