Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Relational Model [Codd] vs Anti-Relational Muddle [Date/Darwen/Fagin/et al]
102 views
Skip to first unread message
Derek Ignatius Asirvadem
Dec 22, 2019, 5:30:56 AM12/22/19
to
=============
1. Argumentation
=============
The first context is the ongoing war between truth and falsity, the common occupation in the modernist era, which is argued forever, without resolution. In order to have a debate that has a clear resolution (one position wins, the other positions lose, the debate is closed), we will argue with the following pre-modern rules, that were standard practice in Western Civilisation for 2,000 years.
1.a. The Four Laws of Thought
The latrine named wiki, in the cesspool that is the internet, has only three, and mis-attributes them.
All four are by Aristotle. All four are further articulated by Boole, et al.
The Fourth is the Law of Sufficient Proof.
1.b. Science
Logic, which is the foundation of Science
The single Objective Reality (the personal, subjective "realities", which are multiple, are excluded)
Evidence
Pre-modern definition. This excludes speculation; hypothesis; multiverses; unicorns; the unformed thoughts of asylum dwellers.
/Scientiam/ means knowledge, not speculation.
Straw Man arguments, which are beloved of the "theoreticians" here, fall in this category, because it is dishonest; anti-science; and sub-human.
1.c Exclusion of Insanity
that is the new "normal" in the modernist era. Schizophrenia is rampant among the "theoreticians" here. In order to limit it and its consequences, I have already posted:
> I do not use the word SCHIZOPHRENIC loosely, but with careful deliberation, the kind that schizophrenics are incapable of. While I have no formal qualifications to diagnose patients, this definition has been approved by two qualified, practicing psychiatrists, and two qualified, practising psychologists/counsellors.
> While (1) denial of reality is the basis for all mental deformation, the:
(2) failure to connect things that ARE connected in reality, and
(3) the perception of connection between things that are NOT connected in reality,
leads to (4) PROJECTION of fantasy [subjective, private, "weality"] onto objects in the real world
constitutes schizophrenia.
> A freak does not need to wait until they are hearing things from people who are not there, to commit murder and mayhem, those four deformities are [approved as] enough to determine the classification.
> I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic and enjoying it. Knock yourself out. But when they infect others, when they teach it, as "education", I do.
(i) Casting doubt without countering an argument squarely, or
(ii) Arguing from the tiny corners of the bell curve,
fit under this head, as it is dishonest (devices to demean an argument) and sub-human, but not necessarily anti-science.
1.d. Clear Win/Lose
This is the application of the Law of the Excluded Middle.
Required because, as evidenced, there is no honour; no sense of responsibility; no sense of profession, among the "theoreticians" here, who love non-resolution, such that they can hold onto the fantasy of their private "reality", in violent contradiction of Objective Reality, who live in the prohibited Excluded Middle.
When a proposal has been made, or a proposal has been countered, an honourable or responsible or professional human being would concede the point. A non-answer by the opposing party will be taken as conceding the point.
========
2. Subject
========
The main issue is:
---------------------------------------------------
the original Relational Model by Dr E F Codd
---------------------------------------------------
vs
---------------------------------
1960's Record Filing System
(easily proved as such)
by post-Codd "theoreticians"
supported by a mountain of ever-changing abnormal "normal forms"
sometimes supported by "math"
heavily promoted and marketed as:
THE "relational model"
---------------------------------
A crime is always two-fold: one of omission; and one of commission. Both are active, not passive.
2.a. The suppression of truth, the Relational Model, is an ongoing affair, that permits the
2.b. Confection of 1960's RFS as "relational".
In order to execute such a fraud, the perpetrator must first deny and suppress the Relational Model, and then pass off their filth as "relational".
If the denial is pathological, or if ignorance is claimed, resistant to the education, the perp is therefore schizophrenic, and should be dismissed for that reason alone.
--------------------------
2.1 The protagonist is:
-------------------
Relational Model
-------------------
Dr E F Codd
Supported by [apparently] the lone figure of Derek Ignatius Asirvadem
Supported by [implicitly, due to their total acceptance of the RM] suppliers of genuine SQL platforms
----------------------------
2.2 The antagonists are:
--------------------
1960's Record Filing System labelled as "relational"
--------------------
The Origin of Pig Poop Cuisine
C J Date (famous for their attacks against the RM, proposed as "interpretation")
Hugh Darwen (ditto)
Ronald Fagin (the "math" behind the filth)
The Slaves that Teach Pig Poop Cuisine
All authors of "textbooks" that articulate Date; Darwen; Fagin "teachings"
All pushers at The Third Manifesto
All "professors"; "lecturers"; "teachers"; that, without even an inspection of the RM, consume the filth published as "THE RM", and regurgitate it as "THE RM"
Suppliers of non-SQL program suites labelled as "SQL"
The Slaves that Teach Slavery
All consumers at TTM
Anyone that either (a) makes a statement about the RM that is false, or (b) promotes the RFS as "relational".
-----------------------
2.3 The victims are:
The RFS promotion is successful, in that it is now understood by the unwashed masses as "relational". However, it has none of the Relational Integrity; Relational Power; or Relational Speed of the Relational Model, it is "relational" only by the false label given it by the pig-poop eaters, who teach others how to obtain; grow; eat; and enjoy pig poop, without mentioning that it rots their brains and causes incontinence.
No doubt the generated approved excreta (hence pig poop) is a ready source of food, for conversion into a personal, private mountain of pig poop. It ties in nicely for those who already have a schizophrenic bent, who rebel against authority, who think their internal fantasies are "real".
Noting the great success of the RFS fraudulently promoted as "relational", the stupefying effect it has had on millions of young minds; the horrendous effect it has had on the tens of millions of databases in the world; the constant maintenance or re-implementation thereof, it is nothing less than one of the greatest scientific frauds ever committed.
"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
[Matthew 7:16]
That effect, dear people, is their intent. Subversion of the RM is their Final Cause.
=======
3. Topic
=======
The subject [2] is large, and there are many topics or threads within it, that can, and should, be argued alone without conflating it with other topics, unless one is dishonest. Thus the first part of the title is the subject, and each such topi can be appended to it. Eg:
Relational Model [Codd] vs Anti-Relational Muddle [Date/Darwen/Fagin/et al] • Third Normal Form
Relational Model [Codd] vs Anti-Relational Muddle [Date/Darwen/Fagin/et al] • Relational Key
I would ask that anyone who wishes to argue any particular aspect of the subject [2], to:
3.a. create a new thread for it, giving the title as described, in order to facilitate searches, etc, and
3.b. stick to the thread, instead of jumping around, or switching tracks, as the "theoreticians" here commonly do. All such devices being the subversive acts of a dishonest person.
----
Since this thread is a header, dealing with protocol, please limit responses on this thread to that.
1. Argumentation
=============
The first context is the ongoing war between truth and falsity, the common occupation in the modernist era, which is argued forever, without resolution. In order to have a debate that has a clear resolution (one position wins, the other positions lose, the debate is closed), we will argue with the following pre-modern rules, that were standard practice in Western Civilisation for 2,000 years.
1.a. The Four Laws of Thought
The latrine named wiki, in the cesspool that is the internet, has only three, and mis-attributes them.
All four are by Aristotle. All four are further articulated by Boole, et al.
The Fourth is the Law of Sufficient Proof.
1.b. Science
Logic, which is the foundation of Science
The single Objective Reality (the personal, subjective "realities", which are multiple, are excluded)
Evidence
Pre-modern definition. This excludes speculation; hypothesis; multiverses; unicorns; the unformed thoughts of asylum dwellers.
/Scientiam/ means knowledge, not speculation.
Straw Man arguments, which are beloved of the "theoreticians" here, fall in this category, because it is dishonest; anti-science; and sub-human.
1.c Exclusion of Insanity
that is the new "normal" in the modernist era. Schizophrenia is rampant among the "theoreticians" here. In order to limit it and its consequences, I have already posted:
> I do not use the word SCHIZOPHRENIC loosely, but with careful deliberation, the kind that schizophrenics are incapable of. While I have no formal qualifications to diagnose patients, this definition has been approved by two qualified, practicing psychiatrists, and two qualified, practising psychologists/counsellors.
> While (1) denial of reality is the basis for all mental deformation, the:
(2) failure to connect things that ARE connected in reality, and
(3) the perception of connection between things that are NOT connected in reality,
leads to (4) PROJECTION of fantasy [subjective, private, "weality"] onto objects in the real world
constitutes schizophrenia.
> A freak does not need to wait until they are hearing things from people who are not there, to commit murder and mayhem, those four deformities are [approved as] enough to determine the classification.
> I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic and enjoying it. Knock yourself out. But when they infect others, when they teach it, as "education", I do.
(i) Casting doubt without countering an argument squarely, or
(ii) Arguing from the tiny corners of the bell curve,
fit under this head, as it is dishonest (devices to demean an argument) and sub-human, but not necessarily anti-science.
1.d. Clear Win/Lose
This is the application of the Law of the Excluded Middle.
Required because, as evidenced, there is no honour; no sense of responsibility; no sense of profession, among the "theoreticians" here, who love non-resolution, such that they can hold onto the fantasy of their private "reality", in violent contradiction of Objective Reality, who live in the prohibited Excluded Middle.
When a proposal has been made, or a proposal has been countered, an honourable or responsible or professional human being would concede the point. A non-answer by the opposing party will be taken as conceding the point.
========
2. Subject
========
The main issue is:
---------------------------------------------------
the original Relational Model by Dr E F Codd
---------------------------------------------------
vs
---------------------------------
1960's Record Filing System
(easily proved as such)
by post-Codd "theoreticians"
supported by a mountain of ever-changing abnormal "normal forms"
sometimes supported by "math"
heavily promoted and marketed as:
THE "relational model"
---------------------------------
A crime is always two-fold: one of omission; and one of commission. Both are active, not passive.
2.a. The suppression of truth, the Relational Model, is an ongoing affair, that permits the
2.b. Confection of 1960's RFS as "relational".
In order to execute such a fraud, the perpetrator must first deny and suppress the Relational Model, and then pass off their filth as "relational".
If the denial is pathological, or if ignorance is claimed, resistant to the education, the perp is therefore schizophrenic, and should be dismissed for that reason alone.
--------------------------
2.1 The protagonist is:
-------------------
Relational Model
-------------------
Dr E F Codd
Supported by [apparently] the lone figure of Derek Ignatius Asirvadem
Supported by [implicitly, due to their total acceptance of the RM] suppliers of genuine SQL platforms
----------------------------
2.2 The antagonists are:
--------------------
1960's Record Filing System labelled as "relational"
--------------------
The Origin of Pig Poop Cuisine
C J Date (famous for their attacks against the RM, proposed as "interpretation")
Hugh Darwen (ditto)
Ronald Fagin (the "math" behind the filth)
The Slaves that Teach Pig Poop Cuisine
All authors of "textbooks" that articulate Date; Darwen; Fagin "teachings"
All pushers at The Third Manifesto
All "professors"; "lecturers"; "teachers"; that, without even an inspection of the RM, consume the filth published as "THE RM", and regurgitate it as "THE RM"
Suppliers of non-SQL program suites labelled as "SQL"
The Slaves that Teach Slavery
All consumers at TTM
Anyone that either (a) makes a statement about the RM that is false, or (b) promotes the RFS as "relational".
-----------------------
2.3 The victims are:
The RFS promotion is successful, in that it is now understood by the unwashed masses as "relational". However, it has none of the Relational Integrity; Relational Power; or Relational Speed of the Relational Model, it is "relational" only by the false label given it by the pig-poop eaters, who teach others how to obtain; grow; eat; and enjoy pig poop, without mentioning that it rots their brains and causes incontinence.
No doubt the generated approved excreta (hence pig poop) is a ready source of food, for conversion into a personal, private mountain of pig poop. It ties in nicely for those who already have a schizophrenic bent, who rebel against authority, who think their internal fantasies are "real".
Noting the great success of the RFS fraudulently promoted as "relational", the stupefying effect it has had on millions of young minds; the horrendous effect it has had on the tens of millions of databases in the world; the constant maintenance or re-implementation thereof, it is nothing less than one of the greatest scientific frauds ever committed.
"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
[Matthew 7:16]
That effect, dear people, is their intent. Subversion of the RM is their Final Cause.
=======
3. Topic
=======
The subject [2] is large, and there are many topics or threads within it, that can, and should, be argued alone without conflating it with other topics, unless one is dishonest. Thus the first part of the title is the subject, and each such topi can be appended to it. Eg:
Relational Model [Codd] vs Anti-Relational Muddle [Date/Darwen/Fagin/et al] • Third Normal Form
Relational Model [Codd] vs Anti-Relational Muddle [Date/Darwen/Fagin/et al] • Relational Key
I would ask that anyone who wishes to argue any particular aspect of the subject [2], to:
3.a. create a new thread for it, giving the title as described, in order to facilitate searches, etc, and
3.b. stick to the thread, instead of jumping around, or switching tracks, as the "theoreticians" here commonly do. All such devices being the subversive acts of a dishonest person.
----
Since this thread is a header, dealing with protocol, please limit responses on this thread to that.
0 new messages