info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?
152 views
Skip to first unread message
Derek Asirvadem
Jan 29, 2015, 11:23:49 PM1/29/15
to
Dear people
In the Hierachical Model Relevance to Relational Model thread, re the Topological thread, I posted:
> > Therefore, it is a tiny project, if implemented by an experienced practitioner
> > who is not crippled by the impediments.
> > ---- And it is difficult, for anyone else, with the extent of difficulty
> > directly related to the extent that they are affected by the impediments.
> > ---- This is a case in point, of how mathematicians cripple [other] mathematicians,
> > all by themselves.
That last sentence is a very important point.
In case it needs to be said, this is not aboout Norbert, it is about mathematicians in the field of databases, Relational Model, and Norbert has provided us with a good, evidenced, example.
Read the Topology thread, please. Ignore my posts if you like. Just read the others, the back-and-forth between two accomplished and published mathematicians. Then consider a short synopsis of that entire thread. Notice:
- Norbert's task is a straight-forward, small, implementation task.
- he is intimately familiar with his problem space
- as much as an abstract thinker can be, abstract relations, etc.
- he has some experience with the theory of how to implement a project, OO, UMAL, etc
- he wants to implement, he asks for help from practitioners
- but he cannot understand the relevance of a word they say, or their diagrams (which use a standard for that implementation, that has been with us since 1985)
- mathematicians cannot help him
- except for Tegiri, who is practical enough to understand what he needs to do, and theoretical enough to communicate with a person at his location, to have the only discourse possible
- thank you Tegiri, you are a breath of fresh air !
- so the project progresses, in the only manner it can, at snails pace, clarifying the communication of abstract ideas
- it will take one year, at least to get a working prototype
- where a capable practitioner would have implemented the entire project in a week
- and the context is, millions of systems that have that concept, topology (to an useful extent, if not to the extent that Norbert claims he has), have been in prodction for over thirty years.
Why is that ?
Why is it that a capable, accomplished mathematician cannot communicate in the real universe, and implement a small project, either with others doing the implementation (where only communication and understanding of both worlds is necessary), or by crossing over into the real universe, and implementing it himself.
Why is he so crippled ? In a task that thousands of mathematicians in non-database fields have succeeded ? Why is he crippled in the application of his own field ?
What is crippling him ?
Because the heart of it, on this forum, and as per his declared intent, is about the Relational Model, which as a mathematician, he believes he knows, (which is now clear he doesn't, or he knows only some tiny fraction of it, and that in mathematical terms only), why is it, with the "mathematical exactitude", and the "simplicity" that mathematicians recognise in the RM, that he cannot implement it ?
(Thinking that a fraction of something, is the whole of it, is dangerous. You find that out when the rubber hits the road, when you start communicating with practitioners, yes.)
Cheers
Derek
In the Hierachical Model Relevance to Relational Model thread, re the Topological thread, I posted:
> > Therefore, it is a tiny project, if implemented by an experienced practitioner
> > who is not crippled by the impediments.
> > ---- And it is difficult, for anyone else, with the extent of difficulty
> > directly related to the extent that they are affected by the impediments.
> > ---- This is a case in point, of how mathematicians cripple [other] mathematicians,
> > all by themselves.
That last sentence is a very important point.
In case it needs to be said, this is not aboout Norbert, it is about mathematicians in the field of databases, Relational Model, and Norbert has provided us with a good, evidenced, example.
Read the Topology thread, please. Ignore my posts if you like. Just read the others, the back-and-forth between two accomplished and published mathematicians. Then consider a short synopsis of that entire thread. Notice:
- Norbert's task is a straight-forward, small, implementation task.
- he is intimately familiar with his problem space
- as much as an abstract thinker can be, abstract relations, etc.
- he has some experience with the theory of how to implement a project, OO, UMAL, etc
- he wants to implement, he asks for help from practitioners
- but he cannot understand the relevance of a word they say, or their diagrams (which use a standard for that implementation, that has been with us since 1985)
- mathematicians cannot help him
- except for Tegiri, who is practical enough to understand what he needs to do, and theoretical enough to communicate with a person at his location, to have the only discourse possible
- thank you Tegiri, you are a breath of fresh air !
- so the project progresses, in the only manner it can, at snails pace, clarifying the communication of abstract ideas
- it will take one year, at least to get a working prototype
- where a capable practitioner would have implemented the entire project in a week
- and the context is, millions of systems that have that concept, topology (to an useful extent, if not to the extent that Norbert claims he has), have been in prodction for over thirty years.
Why is that ?
Why is it that a capable, accomplished mathematician cannot communicate in the real universe, and implement a small project, either with others doing the implementation (where only communication and understanding of both worlds is necessary), or by crossing over into the real universe, and implementing it himself.
Why is he so crippled ? In a task that thousands of mathematicians in non-database fields have succeeded ? Why is he crippled in the application of his own field ?
What is crippling him ?
Because the heart of it, on this forum, and as per his declared intent, is about the Relational Model, which as a mathematician, he believes he knows, (which is now clear he doesn't, or he knows only some tiny fraction of it, and that in mathematical terms only), why is it, with the "mathematical exactitude", and the "simplicity" that mathematicians recognise in the RM, that he cannot implement it ?
(Thinking that a fraction of something, is the whole of it, is dangerous. You find that out when the rubber hits the road, when you start communicating with practitioners, yes.)
Cheers
Derek
Jan Hidders
Jan 30, 2015, 3:21:16 AM1/30/15
to
Op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 05:23:49 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
The answer seems to be "no".
-- Jan Hidders
> Dear people
>
> In the Hierachical Model Relevance to Relational Model thread, re the Topological thread, I posted:
>
> > > Therefore, it is a tiny project, if implemented by an experienced practitioner
> > > who is not crippled by the impediments.
> > > ---- And it is difficult, for anyone else, with the extent of difficulty
> > > directly related to the extent that they are affected by the impediments.
> > > ---- This is a case in point, of how mathematicians cripple [other] mathematicians,
> > > all by themselves.
>
> That last sentence is a very important point.
>
> In case it needs to be said, this is not aboout Norbert, it is about mathematicians in the field of databases, Relational Model, and Norbert has provided us with a good, evidenced, example.
>
> Read the Topology thread, please. Ignore my posts if you like. Just read the others, the back-and-forth between two accomplished and published mathematicians. Then consider a short synopsis of that entire thread. Notice:
> - Norbert's task is a straight-forward, small, implementation task.
No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking. He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use them.
>
> In the Hierachical Model Relevance to Relational Model thread, re the Topological thread, I posted:
>
> > > Therefore, it is a tiny project, if implemented by an experienced practitioner
> > > who is not crippled by the impediments.
> > > ---- And it is difficult, for anyone else, with the extent of difficulty
> > > directly related to the extent that they are affected by the impediments.
> > > ---- This is a case in point, of how mathematicians cripple [other] mathematicians,
> > > all by themselves.
>
> That last sentence is a very important point.
>
> In case it needs to be said, this is not aboout Norbert, it is about mathematicians in the field of databases, Relational Model, and Norbert has provided us with a good, evidenced, example.
>
> Read the Topology thread, please. Ignore my posts if you like. Just read the others, the back-and-forth between two accomplished and published mathematicians. Then consider a short synopsis of that entire thread. Notice:
> - Norbert's task is a straight-forward, small, implementation task.
The answer seems to be "no".
-- Jan Hidders
Norbert_Paul
Jan 30, 2015, 3:01:04 PM1/30/15
to
Jan Hidders wrote:
> Op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 05:23:49 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> Op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 05:23:49 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
>> Read the Topology thread, please. Ignore my posts if you like. Just read
>> the others, the back-and-forth between two accomplished and published
>> mathematicians. Then consider a short synopsis of that entire thread.
>> Notice: - Norbert's task is a straight-forward, small, implementation
>> task.
Well, actually it is more than that. There is still theory work to be done.
>> the others, the back-and-forth between two accomplished and published
>> mathematicians. Then consider a short synopsis of that entire thread.
>> Notice: - Norbert's task is a straight-forward, small, implementation
>> task.
> No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking.
> He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that
> can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his
> question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use
> them.
>
> The answer seems to be "no".
> -- Jan Hidders
Norbert
Tegiri Nenashi
Jan 30, 2015, 4:00:56 PM1/30/15
to
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:01:04 PM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> > No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking.
> > He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that
> > can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his
> > question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use
> > them.
> >
> > The answer seems to be "no".
>
> Yes, obviously.
There is a reason for that. As Todd J. Green eloquently put it, database practitioners are buried in a soul crushing routine work (select * from employees and some such). There is not a lot of insight to gain there.
> > No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking.
> > He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that
> > can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his
> > question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use
> > them.
> >
> > The answer seems to be "no".
>
> Yes, obviously.
It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are mediocre, at best. Still, I would suggest looking up there (rather than in "more practical" fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial matching of substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very important.
Jan Hidders
Jan 30, 2015, 7:01:42 PM1/30/15
to
Op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 22:00:56 UTC+1 schreef Tegiri Nenashi:
> There is a reason for that. As Todd J. Green eloquently put it, database practitioners are buried in a soul crushing routine work (select * from employees and some such). There is not a lot of insight to gain there.
Well, yes and no, the concepts should of course be intuitive for the intended users and it is always easy to fool yourself into thinking that it is, but, yes, it might be a particular class of users that we don't find here. FWIW, I do think there is indeed something interesting going on in Norbert's ideas, but I'm just not sure what exactly it is. It reminded me a little of work on data provenance, where sometimes algebra operators produce their normal result plus a structure indicating the provenance of each record in the result. But that's only a vague connection.
-- Jan Hidders
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:01:04 PM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> > > No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking.
> > > He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that
> > > can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his
> > > question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use
> > > them.
> > >
> > > The answer seems to be "no".
> >
> > Yes, obviously.
Derek seems to think it was already already implemented in commercial DBMSs 20 years ago.
> > > No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking.
> > > He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that
> > > can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his
> > > question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use
> > > them.
> > >
> > > The answer seems to be "no".
> >
> > Yes, obviously.
> There is a reason for that. As Todd J. Green eloquently put it, database practitioners are buried in a soul crushing routine work (select * from employees and some such). There is not a lot of insight to gain there.
-- Jan Hidders
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 1, 2015, 1:56:57 AM2/1/15
to
Questions that are closely related to this thread.
> On Thursday, 1 January 2015 09:23:14 UTC+11, in the Need Tutoring on Relational Calculus thread, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:35:25 -0500
> ruben safir <ru...@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>
> > The concepts of normalization have undergone an up and down road
> > nearly from the beginning. The more you read them, you more you
> > realize that as a model normalization is a failure.
That is a widely held opinion, opinion amongst the student and plebians in the RDB implementer space. Note, as a result of their struggles with Normalisation. Question:
What is the reason, that they have that common experience, that common opinion ? Forty five years after the RM; thirty one years after RDBMS; hundreds of books ?
> I can think of no way in which "normalization is a failure". It's the
> programmer's precept of "don't repeat yourself" wrought in tablular
> form.
Agreed, btw.
Which means, you understand that Normalisation is a science, a principle, applicable to more than just data.
> Because relatively few programmers, even very good ones, understand the
> RM, the odds of you finding one who does are slim.
Agreed.
> That's a
> longstanding problem, and one of the reasons for the poor shape of the
> DBMS market.
Question: Why is that so ? Forty five years after the RM; thirty one years after RDBMS; hundreds of books ?
I do not accept that it is the implementer's fault, or the student's fault.
Given:
> That's part of the beauty of the model and why Codd developed it:
relations are easy to understand and develop intuition for.
which I agree with, in that case, why is everything (database tehory; Nomalisation) so hard, so unknown, so screwed up ? Why, after forty five years since Codd's model, is it LESS understood and applied ?
> One of the problems with database theory is the
average quality of the literature you find online.
Agreed, strongly.
What about the literature in textbooks, used in university courses ? What about the books written for implementers ?
Note the evidence, in the application of said theory, in the field. I estimate, after careful consideration, that of the declared "RDB" implementations, 95% are in fact Record Filing Systems, with no Relational (i) Integrity (ii) Power (iii) Speed, and 5% or less are true RDBs, with (i)(ii)(iii).
Why is that so ? What is the cause ?
Why is it that the car industry and the manufacturing industry have no such problems ... but we do ... for forty five years ?
Cheers
Derek
> On Thursday, 1 January 2015 09:23:14 UTC+11, in the Need Tutoring on Relational Calculus thread, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:35:25 -0500
> ruben safir <ru...@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>
> > The concepts of normalization have undergone an up and down road
> > nearly from the beginning. The more you read them, you more you
> > realize that as a model normalization is a failure.
That is a widely held opinion, opinion amongst the student and plebians in the RDB implementer space. Note, as a result of their struggles with Normalisation. Question:
What is the reason, that they have that common experience, that common opinion ? Forty five years after the RM; thirty one years after RDBMS; hundreds of books ?
> I can think of no way in which "normalization is a failure". It's the
> programmer's precept of "don't repeat yourself" wrought in tablular
> form.
Agreed, btw.
Which means, you understand that Normalisation is a science, a principle, applicable to more than just data.
> Because relatively few programmers, even very good ones, understand the
> RM, the odds of you finding one who does are slim.
Agreed.
> That's a
> longstanding problem, and one of the reasons for the poor shape of the
> DBMS market.
Question: Why is that so ? Forty five years after the RM; thirty one years after RDBMS; hundreds of books ?
I do not accept that it is the implementer's fault, or the student's fault.
Given:
> That's part of the beauty of the model and why Codd developed it:
relations are easy to understand and develop intuition for.
which I agree with, in that case, why is everything (database tehory; Nomalisation) so hard, so unknown, so screwed up ? Why, after forty five years since Codd's model, is it LESS understood and applied ?
> One of the problems with database theory is the
average quality of the literature you find online.
Agreed, strongly.
What about the literature in textbooks, used in university courses ? What about the books written for implementers ?
Note the evidence, in the application of said theory, in the field. I estimate, after careful consideration, that of the declared "RDB" implementations, 95% are in fact Record Filing Systems, with no Relational (i) Integrity (ii) Power (iii) Speed, and 5% or less are true RDBs, with (i)(ii)(iii).
Why is that so ? What is the cause ?
Why is it that the car industry and the manufacturing industry have no such problems ... but we do ... for forty five years ?
Cheers
Derek
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 1, 2015, 3:58:33 AM2/1/15
to
Jan
Norbert
Tegiri
> On Friday, 30 January 2015 19:21:16 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> On Saturday, 31 January 2015 07:01:04 UTC+11, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> On Saturday, 31 January 2015 08:00:56 UTC+11, Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> On Saturday, 31 January 2015 11:01:42 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking. He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use them.
Well, the RM can't be "extended". End of story. So if that is what he is trying to do, his project is dead in the water.
> No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is asking. He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new concepts that can deal with data that represents toplogies over other data. And his question is if practitioners could make sense of these concepts and use them.
(There may be a communication problem; by relational model", you may be meaning one of the 42 "relational model" that methematicians use, all of which have little bearing to The Relational Model, and which are unknown to practitioners [except for people like me, who know a little about what you guys do in the void]. So much for the "exactitude of mathematics", where they use terms out of context and with little specific meaning. In that case, you need to specify which "relational model" you are using; what the base relations are; etc. )
> > The answer seems to be "no".
>
Er, the evidence is, if you bother to read just the intro to my first response in the Topology thread, I do understand it. What you are trying to do is completely understandable, they way you communicate it is gibberish. I repeat, there are thousands of such systems, in terms of products, millions of such systems, in terms of licences. It is staggering that you do not know this.
I can't speak the way you guys do, I don't have your training or jargon, it is silly to expect that from a practitioner. Since you are trying to communicate with the other side of the chasm, you cannot hold onto your demands, you need to communicate differently. Otherwise you will fail.
And in case it is not obvious from the evidence, I have spent a fair amount of time and energy (a) reading your papers (b) typing responses (c) erecting data models, trying to make sure that you do *not* fail. So I am trying to communicate, from this side of the chasm.
It applies the other way around as well, because you guys live in such abject isolation from the real world. You have to be able to read and understand the models and pictures that implementers have been using since 1985. If you have never seen them before, fine, start now. I am happy to help in that, but you haven't asked a question, I don't know what it is that you do not understand.
> There is a reason for that. As Todd J. Green eloquently put it, database practitioners are buried in a soul crushing routine work (select * from employees and some such). There is not a lot of insight to gain there.
If not for the scientists, unknown to you because they do not publish their papers, and the practitioners at the high end, the RDBMS market would have not moved at all since Codd's work. You guys have produced nothing since 1970, nothing useable, nothing installed anywhere, except wind, and you have the hide to position yourself as superior. Give me a break.
Further, I repeat, I have no such idiotic problems when I deal with scientists in the manufacturing or banking industry. We have no problems at all, communicating with each other. Differences, yes, problems, no. We learn each others diagramming and standards, and we are off. This problem (thread title and this interaction) is peculiar to the theorists in the RDB field.
So get off your childish high horses, get back on the ground, and start doing some honest work. Find out what real theoreticians in other industries do, and start emulating them.
> > The answer seems to be "no".
>
Ok. Do something worthwhile with the lifeforce, the energy, that God has given you. Get a goal in life. Don't just sit there at "no, Derek doesn't understand". Bridge the gap. Make it your goal to get Derek to understand it. If you want to succeed, you have to be able to communicate your product to the intended client.
Don't forget, the law we use on this side of the chasm, outside the void: if it isn't documented, it does not exist. Documentation forces you to think in terms of the reader, the recipient. When I produced the data model, I was trying, in my mediocre, stupid, innocent, dumb-implementer way, to start that process for you. Pardon me if I failed.
> It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are mediocre, at best. Still, I would suggest looking up there (rather than in "more practical" fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial matching of substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very important.
Be careful with that. I have some experience helping a couple of American universities. Under-funded. They used "models" for studying DNA sequences and alleles. Post-grad research level. They acquired the "models" from some non-standard "standard" site, and then extended them. It turned out to be very poor, freeware/shareware/vapourware/nowhere. The point is, there are a lot of mediocre theoreticians out there, and their SQL implementations are thus mediocre. I rewrote their entire database in a month, it replaced hundreds of months "work". Their queries that took overnight to run now take seconds. Their SPSS analyses (export to SPSS; cubify; grind; produce a graph) are now halved, because the other half is in the RDB, in useable form, available in seconds. I did the work free, because their work is a benefit to humanity.
> Derek seems to think it was already already implemented in commercial DBMSs 20 years ago.
Type "GIS" or "GEAC GIS" into a google search window. Type <return>. Examine the result window. With your eyes open. Type "mining industry", "architectural spaces", and repeat. Now try all those searches, again, after adding the word "images" to the search window. Repeat. Look at the pretty pictures. Are there any images that look like what you are trying to do ? Good. We had them THIRTY YEARS AGO. There is nothing new there, except for range-of-colour; ease of capture, storage; multilayered componentry. The database tables are the same as twenty years ago, plus a few new attributes.
Here's a system that I worked on in Canada TWENTY years ago. They have come a long way in that thirty years, but they are, being a govt dept, well behind the commercial market
http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc02/pap1302/p1302.htm
Notice how small their GIS component is.
> > There is a reason for that. As Todd J. Green eloquently put it, database practitioners are buried in a soul crushing routine work (select * from employees and some such). There is not a lot of insight to gain there.
>
> Well, yes and no, the concepts should of course be intuitive for the intended users and it is always easy to fool yourself into thinking that it is, but, yes, it might be a particular class of users that we don't find here. FWIW, I do think there is indeed something interesting going on in Norbert's ideas,
As it pertains to the world of Relational Databases, your work is about twenty years behind the commercial products, about ten years behind what I saw in Germany in 2007 (that means 17 years behind). Please check for yourslef. Its only value is, as already stated, if you package it as a library plus SQL scripts, that any app can use, if I could get that, I would use it, instead of the awk:gnuplot that I use now. All detailed in my posts.
Yeah, sure, it might be new in the isolated world of "RDB" theoreticians, or to one of the forty two "relational models" that they talk about, but that has no relevance to the real universe of RDB.
----
And the question that begs, the title of this thread, is WHY is there such a chasm betwen the real RM and the "relational models" that you use, why is there a chasm re communication ? Deal with that, not Norbert's paper, not the Topology thread. I made that clear from the OP. Or, focus on the topology thread and prove, yet again, loud and clear, without need for a mathematical poof, that you cannot deal with the chasm, the cause of it, and the best you can do is focus on a tangent and make immature comments.
Cheers
Derek
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 1, 2015, 4:42:19 AM2/1/15
to
Jan
Norbert
Tegiri
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 19:58:33 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> Well, the RM can't be "extended". End of story.
In case you do not understand what I mean, let me give you an example, from a totally different subject space. Note I am speaking from the high end of the Relational Database world, the physical universe.
I trust that you know, at least in reasonable detail, enough to understand what it is, and the ramifications, the "work" of Date, Darwen, and Nikos, re "temporal databases", and "extending" the Relational model.
It is all pig slop. Excreta straight from the backside of a sow.
I don't have a problem with TweedleDee, TweedleDum and Nikos eating pig poop.
I do have a problem when they try to trick humans into doing so.
Sure, it is better than the bull poop that Snotgrass wrote. But it is still poop.
If we did what they say, we would have to extend SQL, add a bunch of "temporal" functions, change the data columns that are stored in databases currently, change programs and SQL code, etc. And accept that all that poo is an "extension" to The Relational Model. Sure if you are ignorant, and you don't know The Relational Model (the Codd one, not the theoreticians' 42 ones, which may well require all that work).
In their infantile state, the way the perceive temporal data, is a digital continuum, that /must/ be represented by bits, in order for their pathetic functions to work. When implemented in the database, that translates to trillions of bits. It is a form of hard-coding. Absurd. Breaks standards. They need to change the definition of Atomic, 1NF, in order to get it across the line.
Er, humans can operate on temporal data that is stored as DATETIME, or VERSION, we do not need to represent INSTANT, DURATION, INTERVAL, in the form of trillions of bits, in order to perform time-wise operations on it.
If you do know The Relational Model, Codd defines temporal capability. Tersely, admittedly. But it is total, complete, and final. We can perform all temporal functions using SQL, now. And the better ones, we have been doing that for twenty years.
Again, I repeat, The Relational Model can't be extended. End of story.
(Sure, there my well be 42 or 53 ever-changing "relational models" in the theoretical void that we are blessed with in the RDB space, that can be "extended", but then you are using a well-established title fraudulently, to obtain some credibility where there is none, and it will cause confusion. So please stop, and start acting honestly, scientifically. Use honest terms, and create your own credibility, don't steal Codd's, don't commit fraud.)
Now get back to the thread and start thinking about WHY database theoreticians are CRIPPLED. You really need to watch what you eat.
Cheers
Derek
Norbert
Tegiri
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 19:58:33 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> Well, the RM can't be "extended". End of story.
I trust that you know, at least in reasonable detail, enough to understand what it is, and the ramifications, the "work" of Date, Darwen, and Nikos, re "temporal databases", and "extending" the Relational model.
It is all pig slop. Excreta straight from the backside of a sow.
I don't have a problem with TweedleDee, TweedleDum and Nikos eating pig poop.
I do have a problem when they try to trick humans into doing so.
Sure, it is better than the bull poop that Snotgrass wrote. But it is still poop.
If we did what they say, we would have to extend SQL, add a bunch of "temporal" functions, change the data columns that are stored in databases currently, change programs and SQL code, etc. And accept that all that poo is an "extension" to The Relational Model. Sure if you are ignorant, and you don't know The Relational Model (the Codd one, not the theoreticians' 42 ones, which may well require all that work).
In their infantile state, the way the perceive temporal data, is a digital continuum, that /must/ be represented by bits, in order for their pathetic functions to work. When implemented in the database, that translates to trillions of bits. It is a form of hard-coding. Absurd. Breaks standards. They need to change the definition of Atomic, 1NF, in order to get it across the line.
Er, humans can operate on temporal data that is stored as DATETIME, or VERSION, we do not need to represent INSTANT, DURATION, INTERVAL, in the form of trillions of bits, in order to perform time-wise operations on it.
If you do know The Relational Model, Codd defines temporal capability. Tersely, admittedly. But it is total, complete, and final. We can perform all temporal functions using SQL, now. And the better ones, we have been doing that for twenty years.
Again, I repeat, The Relational Model can't be extended. End of story.
(Sure, there my well be 42 or 53 ever-changing "relational models" in the theoretical void that we are blessed with in the RDB space, that can be "extended", but then you are using a well-established title fraudulently, to obtain some credibility where there is none, and it will cause confusion. So please stop, and start acting honestly, scientifically. Use honest terms, and create your own credibility, don't steal Codd's, don't commit fraud.)
Now get back to the thread and start thinking about WHY database theoreticians are CRIPPLED. You really need to watch what you eat.
Cheers
Derek
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 1, 2015, 7:51:57 AM2/1/15
to
Dear people
I was thinking about WHY database theoreticians are CRIPPLED.
I remembered a link to a video that someone sent me, as a joke, "here look at this, what a joke". Yeah, sure, it was funny.
2. But there is something I do not understand. It isn't a joke to the presenter, he is serious. Why is this professor, teaching this "lesson", at grad level, in an university, in 2011 ??? What is the purpose ??? What is the atom of learning in that ??? It is a short video:
Dr Gary Böticcher, Professor, Computing Studies, U of Houston Clear Lake
"Relational Database Theory/Functional Dependencies & Logically Implied Keys"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4sk4h2lhtU
3. Why doesn't he count the hairs on his head, or the petals in a rose, or fish in the sea, or think abot "how do I love thee, let me count the ways". Or, since he likes permutations, count the round hairs vs the flat curly ones, and determine the permutations between them. He would get a more accurate result.
Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
The terms "relational, "Relational theory", and "Functional Dependency" are well-established. For foorty five years. I do not have private definitions, and I don't accept private definitions re science, in this space or any other. Further, he is teaching the titled course. Therefore he had better be using the established terms. Otherwise he is committing fraud, in addition to incompetence.
I hope you are not going to argue re against definitions that have been established for forty five years. Definitions, as Tegiri stated, that "reign supreme". Definitions that the entire RDB industry knows and loves, to whatever degree that they do. Ok, maybe not the 1%.
Whatever mumbo jumbo he is teaching, it is not an FD.
Iff you know that [1] is wrong, then please proceed to question [2] and [3]. Otherwise, let us sit on [1] and argue that for a week or three, like people who have been crippled are doomed to do.
Secondary observations. You don't need to comment on these. Notice the poor professor is barely alive, the eyes are glazed. He is having difficulty communicating what an FD is; why it is relevant; what exact point he is teaching; he is simply not getting his point across to the audience (ie. separate to undamaged humans knowing that his point is garbage).
Counterpoint
Here is another video, even shorter. The guy is adorable, due to his innocence, his earnestness, he is uncorrupted. Same titles, but the guy is not committing fraud. Now obviously, he did not have the funds to go to the great big famous UHCL and pay to get his brain scrambled, he went to some third world university or college. He hasn't even finished the course, but he is so excited, he is teaching a concept that he has learned. Although he is very conservative, he is awake, alive, not a robot. He has no teaching skills, but he does a fine job regardless. He has not been taught that he is descended from an ape, he has not been taught to think like a fish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqW5XGIM1Us
He has a less than perfect handle on FDs, sure, but it is good enough for the purpose. He gets his point across. He completes the lesson in the next video, but we do not have to go that far. He communicates FDs to the audience better than the professor.
Why is that ?
Now, let me just assure you that there is nothing racial or racist in this. I have not only respect, but deep gratitude, for white culture. In case it isn't obvious, I am a product of that. So is the Indian kid, btw, although to a lesser degree. But these days, they are letting themselves be corrupted, from the inside, from the education system down. Why is that ?
Think of the poor students (rich of pocket, abject poverty of mind) who come out of the UHCL "Computing Studies/Relational Database Theory" course. They can't implement a single row, because they will be counting the permutations of non-FDs for three weeks, but they sure can scramble brains.
Think of the poor students (poor of pocket, solid of mind) who come out of the third-world FD course. They speed ten minutes determining the FDs, and they implement. They do not waste time on things that are irrelevant. They can't scramble brains, because it is an offence against God, against Nature, against humanity.
Cheers
Derek
I was thinking about WHY database theoreticians are CRIPPLED.
I remembered a link to a video that someone sent me, as a joke, "here look at this, what a joke". Yeah, sure, it was funny.
2. But there is something I do not understand. It isn't a joke to the presenter, he is serious. Why is this professor, teaching this "lesson", at grad level, in an university, in 2011 ??? What is the purpose ??? What is the atom of learning in that ??? It is a short video:
Dr Gary Böticcher, Professor, Computing Studies, U of Houston Clear Lake
"Relational Database Theory/Functional Dependencies & Logically Implied Keys"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4sk4h2lhtU
3. Why doesn't he count the hairs on his head, or the petals in a rose, or fish in the sea, or think abot "how do I love thee, let me count the ways". Or, since he likes permutations, count the round hairs vs the flat curly ones, and determine the permutations between them. He would get a more accurate result.
Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
The terms "relational, "Relational theory", and "Functional Dependency" are well-established. For foorty five years. I do not have private definitions, and I don't accept private definitions re science, in this space or any other. Further, he is teaching the titled course. Therefore he had better be using the established terms. Otherwise he is committing fraud, in addition to incompetence.
I hope you are not going to argue re against definitions that have been established for forty five years. Definitions, as Tegiri stated, that "reign supreme". Definitions that the entire RDB industry knows and loves, to whatever degree that they do. Ok, maybe not the 1%.
Whatever mumbo jumbo he is teaching, it is not an FD.
Iff you know that [1] is wrong, then please proceed to question [2] and [3]. Otherwise, let us sit on [1] and argue that for a week or three, like people who have been crippled are doomed to do.
Secondary observations. You don't need to comment on these. Notice the poor professor is barely alive, the eyes are glazed. He is having difficulty communicating what an FD is; why it is relevant; what exact point he is teaching; he is simply not getting his point across to the audience (ie. separate to undamaged humans knowing that his point is garbage).
Counterpoint
Here is another video, even shorter. The guy is adorable, due to his innocence, his earnestness, he is uncorrupted. Same titles, but the guy is not committing fraud. Now obviously, he did not have the funds to go to the great big famous UHCL and pay to get his brain scrambled, he went to some third world university or college. He hasn't even finished the course, but he is so excited, he is teaching a concept that he has learned. Although he is very conservative, he is awake, alive, not a robot. He has no teaching skills, but he does a fine job regardless. He has not been taught that he is descended from an ape, he has not been taught to think like a fish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqW5XGIM1Us
He has a less than perfect handle on FDs, sure, but it is good enough for the purpose. He gets his point across. He completes the lesson in the next video, but we do not have to go that far. He communicates FDs to the audience better than the professor.
Why is that ?
Now, let me just assure you that there is nothing racial or racist in this. I have not only respect, but deep gratitude, for white culture. In case it isn't obvious, I am a product of that. So is the Indian kid, btw, although to a lesser degree. But these days, they are letting themselves be corrupted, from the inside, from the education system down. Why is that ?
Think of the poor students (rich of pocket, abject poverty of mind) who come out of the UHCL "Computing Studies/Relational Database Theory" course. They can't implement a single row, because they will be counting the permutations of non-FDs for three weeks, but they sure can scramble brains.
Think of the poor students (poor of pocket, solid of mind) who come out of the third-world FD course. They speed ten minutes determining the FDs, and they implement. They do not waste time on things that are irrelevant. They can't scramble brains, because it is an offence against God, against Nature, against humanity.
Cheers
Derek
Norbert_Paul
Feb 1, 2015, 12:21:54 PM2/1/15
to
Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:01:04 PM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is
>>> asking. He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new
>>> concepts that can deal with data that represents toplogies over other
>>> data. And his question is if practitioners could make sense of these
>>> concepts and use them.
>>>
>>> The answer seems to be "no".
>>
>> Yes, obviously.
>
> There is a reason for that. As Todd J. Green eloquently put it, database
> practitioners are buried in a soul crushing routine work (select * from
> employees and some such). There is not a lot of insight to gain there.
I'd say
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:01:04 PM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> No, I think you misunderstand what he is trying to do and what he is
>>> asking. He is proposing an extension of the relational model with new
>>> concepts that can deal with data that represents toplogies over other
>>> data. And his question is if practitioners could make sense of these
>>> concepts and use them.
>>>
>>> The answer seems to be "no".
>>
>> Yes, obviously.
>
> There is a reason for that. As Todd J. Green eloquently put it, database
> practitioners are buried in a soul crushing routine work (select * from
> employees and some such). There is not a lot of insight to gain there.
exists(select *
from DatabasePractitioners DP
where DP.id not in(
select BSCRW.id
from ThoseBuriedInASoulCrushingRoutineWork BSCRW
)) -- up to typos .
> It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are mediocre,
> at best.
> Still, I would suggest looking up there (rather than in "more
> practical" fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial
> matching of substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very
> important.
to protein folding. This could be an interesting question, though.
Eric
Feb 1, 2015, 12:40:05 PM2/1/15
to
On 2015-02-01, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
8>< --------
Oh yes you do! You have said that the RM you use is Codd and nothing
but Codd. You have said, separately, RMDLSDB and 11 other papers (with
conditions). But you apparently do not want to list those papers. I have
asked, indirectly, more than once (probably a mistake), but I have also
asked directly. Maybe you intended to answer, maybe not, but I have,
as yet, no answer. You may be about to say that I should know without
being told, but I can't because it is _your_ list. I might find someone
else's list, I might even have my own list already, but if I do not have
your list I can not know where you are coming from.
Your definition may be a combination of various publications, but if
you do not provide the evidence then I must say (scientifically) that
it is still a private definition.
Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry
8>< --------
> The terms "relational, "Relational theory", and "Functional Dependency"
> are well-established. For foorty five years. I do not have private
> definitions ...
> are well-established. For foorty five years. I do not have private
Oh yes you do! You have said that the RM you use is Codd and nothing
but Codd. You have said, separately, RMDLSDB and 11 other papers (with
conditions). But you apparently do not want to list those papers. I have
asked, indirectly, more than once (probably a mistake), but I have also
asked directly. Maybe you intended to answer, maybe not, but I have,
as yet, no answer. You may be about to say that I should know without
being told, but I can't because it is _your_ list. I might find someone
else's list, I might even have my own list already, but if I do not have
your list I can not know where you are coming from.
Your definition may be a combination of various publications, but if
you do not provide the evidence then I must say (scientifically) that
it is still a private definition.
Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry
Jan Hidders
Feb 1, 2015, 1:02:23 PM2/1/15
to
Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
-- Jan Hidders
> Dear people
>
> I was thinking about WHY database theoreticians are CRIPPLED.
>
> I remembered a link to a video that someone sent me, as a joke, "here look at this, what a joke". Yeah, sure, it was funny.
>
> 2. But there is something I do not understand. It isn't a joke to the presenter, he is serious. Why is this professor, teaching this "lesson", at grad level, in an university, in 2011 ??? What is the purpose ??? What is the atom of learning in that ??? It is a short video:
>
> Dr Gary Böticcher, Professor, Computing Studies, U of Houston Clear Lake
> "Relational Database Theory/Functional Dependencies & Logically Implied Keys"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4sk4h2lhtU
>
> 3. Why doesn't he count the hairs on his head, or the petals in a rose, or fish in the sea, or think abot "how do I love thee, let me count the ways". Or, since he likes permutations, count the round hairs vs the flat curly ones, and determine the permutations between them. He would get a more accurate result.
>
> Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
>
> 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?
>
> I was thinking about WHY database theoreticians are CRIPPLED.
>
> I remembered a link to a video that someone sent me, as a joke, "here look at this, what a joke". Yeah, sure, it was funny.
>
> 2. But there is something I do not understand. It isn't a joke to the presenter, he is serious. Why is this professor, teaching this "lesson", at grad level, in an university, in 2011 ??? What is the purpose ??? What is the atom of learning in that ??? It is a short video:
>
> Dr Gary Böticcher, Professor, Computing Studies, U of Houston Clear Lake
> "Relational Database Theory/Functional Dependencies & Logically Implied Keys"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4sk4h2lhtU
>
> 3. Why doesn't he count the hairs on his head, or the petals in a rose, or fish in the sea, or think abot "how do I love thee, let me count the ways". Or, since he likes permutations, count the round hairs vs the flat curly ones, and determine the permutations between them. He would get a more accurate result.
>
> Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
>
> 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
-- Jan Hidders
Tegiri Nenashi
Feb 1, 2015, 1:43:34 PM2/1/15
to
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:21:54 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> > It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are mediocre,
> > at best.
>
> Actually, to me this is new. Can you give examples?
I'm just relaying the message from somebody else, who famously said that databases are good at many things, but not especially good at any of them.
> > It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are mediocre,
> > at best.
>
> Actually, to me this is new. Can you give examples?
It is tough call to prove that something is not the best, but let's try to find a reason. The most ubiquitous objects in physics are functions, and the most primitive functions are polynomials. How do you represent polynomials in database? The simplest of all polynomials are linear polynomials, and associated objects -- matrices -- permeate through virtually all branches of science. One can argue that matrix representation as a ternary relation is natural (or not ugly, at least). One can even be impressed by matrix multiplication query which is just relation's self-join followed by aggregation with group by. However, the success is short-lived, and query of matrix inverse is not expressible with standard relational operations.
> > Still, I would suggest looking up there (rather than in "more
> > practical" fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial
> > matching of substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very
> > important.
>
> I personally would stress "might" because I don't know how topology is related
> to protein folding. This could be an interesting question, though.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.6416
Certain poster on this group is emphasizing how theoretical stuff such as normalization theory has no real impact in practice. That is because this is a field which patiently awaits its time. I would rather discuss this, rather than importance (or lack of thereof) of nulls.
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 1, 2015, 5:34:51 PM2/1/15
to
Jan
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:02:23 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> >
Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wrong.
Look I would love to answer your question, but even the first few words would be getting into definitions. And I have stated flatly here, and elsewhere, that I accept the established definitions in the science of the field, and here we are dealing with definitions that have been established for forty five years.
So I would ask you to please think about the fact that I am a practitioner who is very happy with the law, who is not about to change definitions at the drop of a petal. As a teacher, please explain to me, a dumb implementer, who clearly thinks it is wrong, by virtue of established definitions, in the physical universe, and has thirty five years experience (of that established forty five years) proving that the established definitions are RIGHT (reinforced), why this new undefined (paraphrasing your words) proposition of "functional dependency" is it NOT WRONG ?
If you don't mind, pitch at that level. Now both you and the darling doctor are going against forty five years of established science, so it is up to you to explain why such an act is NOT WRONG. It is not up to people in that established forty five years, to prove that the undefined, the hilarious, is WRONG.
I would say that in any scientific course, teaching a concept without defining it, is highly suspect, and not worthy of a professional teacher, but hey, theory in this space is not science. Unidentified Flying Objects, Undefined concepts, that are proposed to exist contrary to science, all pass for course material. This is one example, with hard evidence.
I am trying to give you the concrete that exists in the physical universe, at the moment this unidentified flying object came into it.
I have said, standing in this concrete physical universe, ///I/// do not understand.
Which textbook ?
The fact that it is in a textbook does not make it right. They are printing pure pig poop as textbooks, and teaching them at universities (which might -- emphasise "might" -- be the reason database theoreticians are crippled).
When I went to college, thirty nine years ago, our professors only taught what they really understood. There were some who were really good at some unit and who would not teach some other unit, because THEY thought they were weak. I recall, we begged one lecturer to teach an unit because he was excellent at teaching and the professor teaching that unit was excellent in the material but hopeless at teaching. He wouldn't. None of them had their eyes glazed over. None of them taught undefined objects. Computer Science was science. Those days are long gone. Now theory is non-science.
Likewise for textbooks. If a professor did not accept a textbook, he would not use it. If any one used a textbook as a script, without fully understanding the material, if anyone relied on "oh, it is in the textbook". We would have laughed him off as a robot. Those days are long gone. Now they read from textbooks as if the textbook is scripture, without understanding, without assenting. Again, the is (by definition) religion, not science. The mind has been displaced, it is now textbook-slaves teaching slavery. Nothing to do with science. Notice the glazed eyes of a robot. Notice the difficulty getting his point across.
I am very grateful to God that I had my secondary and tertiary education before the education system was destroyed.
Over to you. You are telling me the new proposal for "functional dependency", that contradicts forty five years of established science and definitions, presented without definition (he would have to do that in order to commit the fraud), is NOT WRONG. Please explain why, using science, not "scripture". You and he are making the assault on science, it is up to you to justify it. My colleagues and I have already shot it out of the sky, and pissed ourselves laughing at him.
Cheers
Derek
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:02:23 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> >
> > Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
> >
> > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
>
> Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?
First, thank you for stopping at point 1, and dealing with that.
> >
> > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
>
> Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?
Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wrong.
Look I would love to answer your question, but even the first few words would be getting into definitions. And I have stated flatly here, and elsewhere, that I accept the established definitions in the science of the field, and here we are dealing with definitions that have been established for forty five years.
So I would ask you to please think about the fact that I am a practitioner who is very happy with the law, who is not about to change definitions at the drop of a petal. As a teacher, please explain to me, a dumb implementer, who clearly thinks it is wrong, by virtue of established definitions, in the physical universe, and has thirty five years experience (of that established forty five years) proving that the established definitions are RIGHT (reinforced), why this new undefined (paraphrasing your words) proposition of "functional dependency" is it NOT WRONG ?
If you don't mind, pitch at that level. Now both you and the darling doctor are going against forty five years of established science, so it is up to you to explain why such an act is NOT WRONG. It is not up to people in that established forty five years, to prove that the undefined, the hilarious, is WRONG.
I would say that in any scientific course, teaching a concept without defining it, is highly suspect, and not worthy of a professional teacher, but hey, theory in this space is not science. Unidentified Flying Objects, Undefined concepts, that are proposed to exist contrary to science, all pass for course material. This is one example, with hard evidence.
I am trying to give you the concrete that exists in the physical universe, at the moment this unidentified flying object came into it.
I have said, standing in this concrete physical universe, ///I/// do not understand.
Which textbook ?
The fact that it is in a textbook does not make it right. They are printing pure pig poop as textbooks, and teaching them at universities (which might -- emphasise "might" -- be the reason database theoreticians are crippled).
When I went to college, thirty nine years ago, our professors only taught what they really understood. There were some who were really good at some unit and who would not teach some other unit, because THEY thought they were weak. I recall, we begged one lecturer to teach an unit because he was excellent at teaching and the professor teaching that unit was excellent in the material but hopeless at teaching. He wouldn't. None of them had their eyes glazed over. None of them taught undefined objects. Computer Science was science. Those days are long gone. Now theory is non-science.
Likewise for textbooks. If a professor did not accept a textbook, he would not use it. If any one used a textbook as a script, without fully understanding the material, if anyone relied on "oh, it is in the textbook". We would have laughed him off as a robot. Those days are long gone. Now they read from textbooks as if the textbook is scripture, without understanding, without assenting. Again, the is (by definition) religion, not science. The mind has been displaced, it is now textbook-slaves teaching slavery. Nothing to do with science. Notice the glazed eyes of a robot. Notice the difficulty getting his point across.
I am very grateful to God that I had my secondary and tertiary education before the education system was destroyed.
Over to you. You are telling me the new proposal for "functional dependency", that contradicts forty five years of established science and definitions, presented without definition (he would have to do that in order to commit the fraud), is NOT WRONG. Please explain why, using science, not "scripture". You and he are making the assault on science, it is up to you to justify it. My colleagues and I have already shot it out of the sky, and pissed ourselves laughing at him.
Cheers
Derek
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 1, 2015, 6:29:28 PM2/1/15
to
Tegiri
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:43:34 UTC+11, Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
>
> Certain poster on this group is emphasizing how theoretical stuff such as normalization theory has no real impact in practice.
1. Just in case you might be talking about me (emphasis on "might"). I said no such thing. Normalisation is essential in practice. Normalisation is a science. As usual, in this space, the theoretical portion of the science is a small fraction of it. Practitioners practice the science, not the theory. Normalisation, if viewed or known *only* as the theory, is very fractured, isolated, skewed, a collection of fragments. Eg. as a collection of the NF definitions.
And half of the NF definitions are pure pig poop, straight out of the sow's backside. By schiz, and or schiz. Undamaged humans do not need them.
2. And in the case that you might be talking about another "certain poster" (emphasis on "might"), your statements are unfair, a false representation of what he posted. I am not suggesting you are dishonest, just that you are viewing something in the physical universe from the tiny /alien/ lens of theory, your religion, as you have demonstrated, and thus unconsciously portraying it in a skewed as simplistic manner. I don't have a problem, none at all, if you do that.
But when you post that skewed view in the physical universe, then I have to respond.
If you care to read the rest of that post, you might notice, the gentleman gave concrete instructions re Normalisation, without labouring through the fragmented theory, which AFAIC, was the perfect pitch to the level of the seeker.
----
Please be advised that when I teach RDb Design, Normalisation is a major subject, and I approach it as science. The first thing I do is excise the abnormal "normal form" definitions which are marketed by the schizophrenics that wrote them, retaining the three Normal Forms that undamaged human beings need. Then I teach the science, complete with exercises that use several tables (frauds use single "relations" to construct their Straw Man arguments; papers; mathematical poofs). Then I teach the two scientific Normal Forms that are /informally/ but scientifically (at least to those who have their feet on the ground) defined in the Relational Model (the concrete Codd RM, not the 42 religious artefacts).
Sum total in the scientific universe: the five scientific Normal Forms, and the rest, a pile of poop, in the toilet.
Sum total in the far reaches of the galaxy, your precious theoreticians religious position: the huge pile of poop, and three Normal Forms which are only slightly understood. That, of course, has a crippling effect.
The fact that theorists in our field have been unable to collect the bag of "normal forms" that they themselves have defined, into one coherent whole, that can be used as a method, is evidence that they are clueless about the /exercise/ of Normalisation, that they only understand the fragmented bits, and that, only in isolation. Like blind men defining as elephant.
The fact that the theorists continue to define schizophrenic "normal forms", the purpose of which is to justify Record Filing Systems that are non-relational, in forty five years, stands as evidence that the theorists in our field understand only Record Filing systems.
The fact that the theorists continue to define schizophrenic "normal forms", but have been utterly unable to /formally/ define the two NFs in the RM, in forty five years, stands as evidence that our field is devoid of theoreticians who understand the RM, they are completely impotent at articulating it. It is no wonder that they count fish in the sea.
I am happy to take Normalisation (science vs alien theory) up, but we should start a separate thread.
> That is because this is a field which patiently awaits its time.
Waiting for the Second Coming, I suppose.
Promises, promises, promises. But no delivery. Religion again. All gas and no excreta makes the act of sitting on the toilet extremely boring, it is a wasteful use of time.
And to be complete, you are not talking about our field, you are talking about the tiny fraction of it that is occupied by theoreticians. Who, by virtue of the evidence, have produced nothing that has benefited the field (the whole field, not the fraction) in forty five years.
> I would rather discuss this, rather than importance (or lack of thereof) of nulls.
There is a current thread, The Null Problem is a Non-issue, sitting there with no progress. I am about to close it as confirmed, given that the priests can't deny the concrete facts. I would be happy to discuss it, especially if you remove your mitre and leave the bishopric for a few minutes. I agree, the importance (or lack thereof) of nulls is not the main issue.
Cheers
Derek
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:43:34 UTC+11, Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
>
> Certain poster on this group is emphasizing how theoretical stuff such as normalization theory has no real impact in practice.
And half of the NF definitions are pure pig poop, straight out of the sow's backside. By schiz, and or schiz. Undamaged humans do not need them.
2. And in the case that you might be talking about another "certain poster" (emphasis on "might"), your statements are unfair, a false representation of what he posted. I am not suggesting you are dishonest, just that you are viewing something in the physical universe from the tiny /alien/ lens of theory, your religion, as you have demonstrated, and thus unconsciously portraying it in a skewed as simplistic manner. I don't have a problem, none at all, if you do that.
But when you post that skewed view in the physical universe, then I have to respond.
If you care to read the rest of that post, you might notice, the gentleman gave concrete instructions re Normalisation, without labouring through the fragmented theory, which AFAIC, was the perfect pitch to the level of the seeker.
----
Please be advised that when I teach RDb Design, Normalisation is a major subject, and I approach it as science. The first thing I do is excise the abnormal "normal form" definitions which are marketed by the schizophrenics that wrote them, retaining the three Normal Forms that undamaged human beings need. Then I teach the science, complete with exercises that use several tables (frauds use single "relations" to construct their Straw Man arguments; papers; mathematical poofs). Then I teach the two scientific Normal Forms that are /informally/ but scientifically (at least to those who have their feet on the ground) defined in the Relational Model (the concrete Codd RM, not the 42 religious artefacts).
Sum total in the scientific universe: the five scientific Normal Forms, and the rest, a pile of poop, in the toilet.
Sum total in the far reaches of the galaxy, your precious theoreticians religious position: the huge pile of poop, and three Normal Forms which are only slightly understood. That, of course, has a crippling effect.
The fact that theorists in our field have been unable to collect the bag of "normal forms" that they themselves have defined, into one coherent whole, that can be used as a method, is evidence that they are clueless about the /exercise/ of Normalisation, that they only understand the fragmented bits, and that, only in isolation. Like blind men defining as elephant.
The fact that the theorists continue to define schizophrenic "normal forms", the purpose of which is to justify Record Filing Systems that are non-relational, in forty five years, stands as evidence that the theorists in our field understand only Record Filing systems.
The fact that the theorists continue to define schizophrenic "normal forms", but have been utterly unable to /formally/ define the two NFs in the RM, in forty five years, stands as evidence that our field is devoid of theoreticians who understand the RM, they are completely impotent at articulating it. It is no wonder that they count fish in the sea.
I am happy to take Normalisation (science vs alien theory) up, but we should start a separate thread.
> That is because this is a field which patiently awaits its time.
Promises, promises, promises. But no delivery. Religion again. All gas and no excreta makes the act of sitting on the toilet extremely boring, it is a wasteful use of time.
And to be complete, you are not talking about our field, you are talking about the tiny fraction of it that is occupied by theoreticians. Who, by virtue of the evidence, have produced nothing that has benefited the field (the whole field, not the fraction) in forty five years.
> I would rather discuss this, rather than importance (or lack of thereof) of nulls.
Cheers
Derek
Jan Hidders
Feb 2, 2015, 6:46:11 AM2/2/15
to
Op zondag 1 februari 2015 23:34:51 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> Look I would love to answer your question, but even the first few words would be getting into definitions. And I have stated flatly here, and elsewhere, that I accept the established definitions in the science of the field, and here we are dealing with definitions that have been established for forty five years.
Established where? In textbooks? In scientific publications? In practice? For the last one it is my own experience that there not all normalisation terminology, not even the word normalisation itself, is used always in a consistent, precise and well-defined manner. So that can hardly be called a well-defined notion. So that leaves only the first two, and with that the presenter is consistent.
Btw. you seem be using again the word "science" where you actually mean "engineering". No problem, as long you are clear about what you mean.
> So I would ask you to please think about the fact that I am a practitioner who is very happy with the law, who is not about to change definitions at the drop of a petal. As a teacher, please explain to me, a dumb implementer, who clearly thinks it is wrong, by virtue of established definitions, in the physical universe, and has thirty five years experience (of that established forty five years) proving that the established definitions are RIGHT (reinforced), why this new undefined (paraphrasing your words) proposition of "functional dependency" is it NOT WRONG ?
I did not call you a dumb implementer. I don't think you are. But as far as I can tell the presenter is using the term "functional dependency" consistently with the usual definition in normalisation theory in literature and text books. At what point in his presentation do you think he deviates from that definition? And is the definition that you prefer actually different from that definition?
> I would say that in any scientific course, teaching a concept without defining it, is highly suspect, and not worthy of a professional teacher, but hey, theory in this space is not science.
That depends. All we know is that he did not define it during the lecture. He probably is using a text book that defines it more precisely. So it is not necessarily a problem.
> The fact that it is in a textbook does not make it right. They are printing pure pig poop as textbooks, and teaching them at universities (which might -- emphasise "might" -- be the reason database theoreticians are crippled).
*shrug* Sure, you are free to disagree with the usefulness of the standard text book definitions and those that are used in scientific publications, peer-reviewed and written by the authorities in the domain, et cetera. But that does not justify calling university professors frauds just because they use those in their lectures.
-- Jan Hidders
> Jan
>
> > On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:02:23 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > >
> > > Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
> > >
> > > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
> >
> > Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?
>
> First, thank you for stopping at point 1, and dealing with that.
>
> Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wrong.
I don't think it is wrong, just less thorough than I prefer, and I certainly don't agree that it is already established that it is wrong. You have yet to give evidence for that claim.
>
> > On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:02:23 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > >
> > > Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
> > >
> > > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
> >
> > Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?
>
> First, thank you for stopping at point 1, and dealing with that.
>
> Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wrong.
> Look I would love to answer your question, but even the first few words would be getting into definitions. And I have stated flatly here, and elsewhere, that I accept the established definitions in the science of the field, and here we are dealing with definitions that have been established for forty five years.
Btw. you seem be using again the word "science" where you actually mean "engineering". No problem, as long you are clear about what you mean.
> So I would ask you to please think about the fact that I am a practitioner who is very happy with the law, who is not about to change definitions at the drop of a petal. As a teacher, please explain to me, a dumb implementer, who clearly thinks it is wrong, by virtue of established definitions, in the physical universe, and has thirty five years experience (of that established forty five years) proving that the established definitions are RIGHT (reinforced), why this new undefined (paraphrasing your words) proposition of "functional dependency" is it NOT WRONG ?
> I would say that in any scientific course, teaching a concept without defining it, is highly suspect, and not worthy of a professional teacher, but hey, theory in this space is not science.
> The fact that it is in a textbook does not make it right. They are printing pure pig poop as textbooks, and teaching them at universities (which might -- emphasise "might" -- be the reason database theoreticians are crippled).
-- Jan Hidders
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 2, 2015, 10:09:05 AM2/2/15
to
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. Are you aware, that to a practitioner in the physical universe, that is completely unacceptable ? If you crash your car into some other car, can you get away with dancing around your personal interpretations of the law, whose fault it is ? If your girlfriend is pregnant, do you discuss the nature and condition of the ovum, in order to assign some responsibility for paternity to the ovum ?
Let me try an keep it short and to the point. Only to drag you back to being short and to the point. In order to have the issue resolved. SO that you move on to point [2], et cetera.
> 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.
From your post, you don't actually *know* anything, you *stand* for nothing. You are quite happy to entertain this "definition"; that "definition"; this freak; that freak; etc. All at the same time. In the same cranial space. Well, you have not even noticed that each of them contradict each other. Therefore each of them is WRONG. Therefore ALL of them are WRONG.
Further, they each keep changing their "definitions". Truth does not change, it is permanent. Only pig poop changes. And there is no end to the changes. First it is soft and smelly; later it is hard, but still smelly; later still it shrinks and gets harder, and the smell is reduced; finally, it is very hard, and the smell is gone. Now it is approaching a permanent state. The law doesn't change. It states that "definitions" that contradict the law are illegal; that "definitions" that keep changing are not definitions, they are lies, unworthy of scientific consideration, pig poop.
Now the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1970, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form. From memory ie. I am happy to be corrected, but I expect any errors to be minor, unworthy of argument):
____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
Date spent a lot of time trying to subvert that, and he failed.
This freaky professor doesn't have a clue what he is teaching, doesn't give a "definition" for the freaky thing he is teaching (not that a new "definition" would be acceptable, if he did give a new one, I would have a different problem with him). He can't even teach the thing that he thinks it is. Get a grip. That is why he is a fraud.
Don't check or quote wiki, it changes at the same rateas pig poop.
I do not "claim" that what he is teaching is wrong. I DECLARE, based on the standing unchanged evidence of forty five years, from the one authority who gave the law, that the freak is breaking the law, and teaching pig poop to innocent young minds, corrupting them. I STAND for something, the law. The name on this particular law is Codd, but I stand for all laws, from Moses downwards. None of your freaky friends or their changing "definitions" have the slightest impact on me, or on the law.
It is not an arguable matter.
My initial question to you was "do you know it is wrong", so that is there was an issue, we could close it. I had, and still have, no intention whatsoever of discussing the squirming thoughts of people who rely on pig poop. I couldn't care less about what freaks write in the harry potter novels; what other freaks think about it; whether they are used as textbooks or toilet paper. And if you do choose to argue, you will be further confirming your place among those freaks who are destroying education.
Do not dare to call it science, or to redefine the word.
Now go to point [2], please.
Cheers
Derek
> 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. Are you aware, that to a practitioner in the physical universe, that is completely unacceptable ? If you crash your car into some other car, can you get away with dancing around your personal interpretations of the law, whose fault it is ? If your girlfriend is pregnant, do you discuss the nature and condition of the ovum, in order to assign some responsibility for paternity to the ovum ?
Let me try an keep it short and to the point. Only to drag you back to being short and to the point. In order to have the issue resolved. SO that you move on to point [2], et cetera.
> You have yet to give evidence for that claim.
From your post, you don't actually *know* anything, you *stand* for nothing. You are quite happy to entertain this "definition"; that "definition"; this freak; that freak; etc. All at the same time. In the same cranial space. Well, you have not even noticed that each of them contradict each other. Therefore each of them is WRONG. Therefore ALL of them are WRONG.
Further, they each keep changing their "definitions". Truth does not change, it is permanent. Only pig poop changes. And there is no end to the changes. First it is soft and smelly; later it is hard, but still smelly; later still it shrinks and gets harder, and the smell is reduced; finally, it is very hard, and the smell is gone. Now it is approaching a permanent state. The law doesn't change. It states that "definitions" that contradict the law are illegal; that "definitions" that keep changing are not definitions, they are lies, unworthy of scientific consideration, pig poop.
Now the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1970, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form. From memory ie. I am happy to be corrected, but I expect any errors to be minor, unworthy of argument):
____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
Date spent a lot of time trying to subvert that, and he failed.
This freaky professor doesn't have a clue what he is teaching, doesn't give a "definition" for the freaky thing he is teaching (not that a new "definition" would be acceptable, if he did give a new one, I would have a different problem with him). He can't even teach the thing that he thinks it is. Get a grip. That is why he is a fraud.
Don't check or quote wiki, it changes at the same rateas pig poop.
I do not "claim" that what he is teaching is wrong. I DECLARE, based on the standing unchanged evidence of forty five years, from the one authority who gave the law, that the freak is breaking the law, and teaching pig poop to innocent young minds, corrupting them. I STAND for something, the law. The name on this particular law is Codd, but I stand for all laws, from Moses downwards. None of your freaky friends or their changing "definitions" have the slightest impact on me, or on the law.
It is not an arguable matter.
My initial question to you was "do you know it is wrong", so that is there was an issue, we could close it. I had, and still have, no intention whatsoever of discussing the squirming thoughts of people who rely on pig poop. I couldn't care less about what freaks write in the harry potter novels; what other freaks think about it; whether they are used as textbooks or toilet paper. And if you do choose to argue, you will be further confirming your place among those freaks who are destroying education.
Do not dare to call it science, or to redefine the word.
Now go to point [2], please.
Cheers
Derek
Jan Hidders
Feb 2, 2015, 10:10:09 AM2/2/15
to
Op maandag 2 februari 2015 12:46:11 UTC+1 schreef Jan Hidders:
-- Jan Hidders
> Op zondag 1 februari 2015 23:34:51 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > Jan
> >
> > > On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:02:23 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > > Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
> > > >
> > > > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
> > >
> > > Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?
> >
> > First, thank you for stopping at point 1, and dealing with that.
> >
> > Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wrong.
>
> I don't think it is wrong, just less thorough than I prefer, and I certainly don't agree that it is already established that it is wrong.
A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I withdraw my criticism.
> > Jan
> >
> > > On Monday, 2 February 2015 05:02:23 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > > Op zondag 1 februari 2015 13:51:57 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, wait. Maybe you do not know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me back up.
> > > >
> > > > 1. First, do you know that what he is teaching is wrong ?
> > >
> > > Wrong? Not in the part I just watched. He kinda skips giving a complete definition of FDs but I don't see him using normalization terminology in a non-standard way. He pretty much sticks to the textbook stuff. Would you be able to make your accusations a bit more concrete?
> >
> > First, thank you for stopping at point 1, and dealing with that.
> >
> > Ok, so it is established that it is wrong, but you don't think it is wrong.
>
> I don't think it is wrong, just less thorough than I prefer, and I certainly don't agree that it is already established that it is wrong.
-- Jan Hidders
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 2, 2015, 10:53:05 AM2/2/15
to
> On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:10:09 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I withdraw my criticism.
Ok.
>
> A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I withdraw my criticism.
We are progressing very slowly.
Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.
I know that he inflates the value of his knowledge, whatever he is going to teach, by mentioning databases that are in 1NF. I know that he gives the well-known theoretical "definition" for what is suggested as 3NF. But what you do not know is, that definition is the usual, stupid, fractured, fragmented, definition that is only relevant to theoreticians.
It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.
It cannot be applied to anything, except a bunch of duplicated numbers on a grid(, and even those rows of numbers are illegal, misrepresented.) That fragment of a "definition" cannot be applied to anything in the real world, not even to a well-chosen set of numbers in a grid.
He is a fraud, because in the course (read the title "Relational Database Theory", which existed as Codd gave, since 1970), he fails to give the original definition, which can be used anywhere and everywhere in the physical universe, and gives only the fragmented "definition" that can be used in the dreamtime, on the back of the eye-lids.
I don't even have a problem if he ONLY teaches the fragment, but then he MUST change title of the unit, the title of the course. It could be something like "Alternate Theories about Relational Theory", or "How to Blink Well and Deliver Nothing" (noting that he plugs implementation quality and fear at the outset). But as long as the title is "Relational Database Theory", which is well-known and well-understood, as a package that Codd delivered, and that has been furthered since then, if he teaches anything other than that that, he is committing a fraud.
Separate to that, under the title "Functional Dependency", he is teaching a small fraction of FDs, as per the original definition. So he is committing a second fraud.
I wouldn't have a problem if he taught that crap under a title like "Permutations of Possible Dependencies where the Key is Excised", or "Shakespeare's Sonnets Expressed as Relations". But if he teaches anything other than the original definition under the title "Functional Dependency", he is committin g fraud.
How would you feel, if you knew and loved a Volkswagen Golf,; chose a good black one from an advertisement on the internet from a car yard; paid your 10,000 Euros,; and when you went to pick it up, they gave you a photograph of a red golf ? And when you get upset, they say, well, a black one and a red one are all the same, it is just a photograph. And when you say, you bought a car, not a photo, they say, no, you bought a photo, a car would not fit on your screen.
It is the kind of "logic" that you get from thieves, gypsies.
He needs to be locked up, either in prison or in an asylum.
To protect society from this kind of crime.
And sure, if he did n't create it, if he is just a robot, then there are two more actions: he is committing a third fraud, misrepresenting himself as a "professor" who knows the subject matter, and he can cry that he is a victim of books. The second action is to hunt down sucj authors and hang them upside-down on the old city walls. And to burn their books.
Cheers
Derek
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 2, 2015, 11:51:02 AM2/2/15
to
Jan
Let's see if we can pick up the pace a bit.
So I have established, under Roman Dutch Law, in civilised countries that are not held hostage by gypsies, tramps, and thieves, the "professor" is committing three frauds, worthy of a medium prison sentence, and the authors are committing one great fraud, and the sentence is much greater, execution.
> On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:09:05 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> Now the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1970, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form. From memory (ie. I am happy to be corrected, but I expect any errors to be minor, unworthy of argument):
1. Post-choice of a Key, the FDs are used purely as a verification method. Very fast, very clera.
2. During the choosing of a Key, FDs are used deterministic method. A bit more work, but very clear.
3. Prior to choosing a Key, FDs are pure conjecture, because there is nothing for the attributes to be Functionally Dependent upon. So even if they idea was contemplated, it really should be named something else, not FDs. To the extent that the theoreticians use the term for [3], it is fraud, confusion at best.
[3] has no clarity at all, it is confusing to most people to whom it is given. It is slow, until such time as a meaningful goal is given.
So in the physical universe of practitioners, only [1] and [2] exist. [3] is unknown, and if considered, quite laughable, pointless, needless.
Then there are a few practitioners, such as yours truly, who know a tiny bit about what theoreticians do in their MMM workshops. They have figured out, that by trying all the permutations of the possible "FDs", on all the attribute sets and subsets, such that when certain magical mystical combinations occur, woohoo, they have determined a "key".
Marvellous.
Wonderful.
Give the magician a gold star and a pointy hat. One more elephant hair has been determined, but they are still clueless about the elephant.
Codd gave us the definition of a Key: "it is made up from the data, a subset of the attributes that uniquely identify the row (tuple)"
Can any of you give me an example of where any company on the planet uses 1's and 2's or x's and y's as attribute values ?
Right.
So the fact is, that the key-determination-via-non-functional-dependency method is good for nothing in the physical universe. But there is a learning value.
If the examples used real data values, instead of 1's and 2's, the kids might learn something. Otherwise it is a Japanese puzzle for 3-year-olds, using 1's and 2's instead of 1-to-9's.
----
The "professor" is trying to teach that[3]. Not [1], not [2], but [3]. But the title is [1]. If he was teaching [3] properly, then he would introduce and explain what the concept is, then he would teach it. He doesn't. He launches into the most idiotic, useless, meaningless use of FDs, without explaining a thing, without teaching [1], then[2], then: oh, btw, here is a neat trick if you ever are in the position where you cannot determine the key, here is [3].
So the evidenced facts are (check the video), he is teaching [3] with no introduction or explanation, under the title of [1].
Hence my initial comments re the hairs on his head, the fish in the sea.
Hence my initial comments: he is clueless *about* the subject; he is clueless about *how to teach* the subject; but he is teaching it anyway, under a title that is well-established. Fraud count number four.
And again, if alien magicians wrote books, that instructed him to teach FDs like this [3][1][2], backwars and upside-down, severe fraud count two against them. Fifty lashes before the hanging, and hanging upside-down.
I hope I have bridged the chasm, at least in this one small subject. The level of understanding, the distance between the theoreticians in this field, and ythis field, is like the Grand Canyon.
Cheers
Derek
Let's see if we can pick up the pace a bit.
So I have established, under Roman Dutch Law, in civilised countries that are not held hostage by gypsies, tramps, and thieves, the "professor" is committing three frauds, worthy of a medium prison sentence, and the authors are committing one great fraud, and the sentence is much greater, execution.
> On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:09:05 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> Now the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1970, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form. From memory (ie. I am happy to be corrected, but I expect any errors to be minor, unworthy of argument):
> ____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
In case you theoreticians are not aware, it follows from the above, for us undamaged humans, that "Key" identified, is a key issue. Without the Key, there is nothing for the attributes to be, or not be, Functionally Dependent upon. Therefore it is impossible to contemplate a Functional Dependency, unless and until one is choosing a Key. The Key does not have to be final, just an attribute set that is honestly being considered as a Key.
1. Post-choice of a Key, the FDs are used purely as a verification method. Very fast, very clera.
2. During the choosing of a Key, FDs are used deterministic method. A bit more work, but very clear.
3. Prior to choosing a Key, FDs are pure conjecture, because there is nothing for the attributes to be Functionally Dependent upon. So even if they idea was contemplated, it really should be named something else, not FDs. To the extent that the theoreticians use the term for [3], it is fraud, confusion at best.
[3] has no clarity at all, it is confusing to most people to whom it is given. It is slow, until such time as a meaningful goal is given.
So in the physical universe of practitioners, only [1] and [2] exist. [3] is unknown, and if considered, quite laughable, pointless, needless.
Then there are a few practitioners, such as yours truly, who know a tiny bit about what theoreticians do in their MMM workshops. They have figured out, that by trying all the permutations of the possible "FDs", on all the attribute sets and subsets, such that when certain magical mystical combinations occur, woohoo, they have determined a "key".
Marvellous.
Wonderful.
Give the magician a gold star and a pointy hat. One more elephant hair has been determined, but they are still clueless about the elephant.
Codd gave us the definition of a Key: "it is made up from the data, a subset of the attributes that uniquely identify the row (tuple)"
Can any of you give me an example of where any company on the planet uses 1's and 2's or x's and y's as attribute values ?
Right.
So the fact is, that the key-determination-via-non-functional-dependency method is good for nothing in the physical universe. But there is a learning value.
If the examples used real data values, instead of 1's and 2's, the kids might learn something. Otherwise it is a Japanese puzzle for 3-year-olds, using 1's and 2's instead of 1-to-9's.
----
The "professor" is trying to teach that[3]. Not [1], not [2], but [3]. But the title is [1]. If he was teaching [3] properly, then he would introduce and explain what the concept is, then he would teach it. He doesn't. He launches into the most idiotic, useless, meaningless use of FDs, without explaining a thing, without teaching [1], then[2], then: oh, btw, here is a neat trick if you ever are in the position where you cannot determine the key, here is [3].
So the evidenced facts are (check the video), he is teaching [3] with no introduction or explanation, under the title of [1].
Hence my initial comments re the hairs on his head, the fish in the sea.
Hence my initial comments: he is clueless *about* the subject; he is clueless about *how to teach* the subject; but he is teaching it anyway, under a title that is well-established. Fraud count number four.
And again, if alien magicians wrote books, that instructed him to teach FDs like this [3][1][2], backwars and upside-down, severe fraud count two against them. Fifty lashes before the hanging, and hanging upside-down.
I hope I have bridged the chasm, at least in this one small subject. The level of understanding, the distance between the theoreticians in this field, and ythis field, is like the Grand Canyon.
Cheers
Derek
Norbert_Paul
Feb 2, 2015, 12:45:02 PM2/2/15
to
Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:21:54 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are
>>> mediocre, at best.
>>
>> Actually, to me this is new. Can you give examples?
>
> I'm just relaying the message from somebody else, who famously said that
> databases are good at many things, but not especially good at any of them.
Who?
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:21:54 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are
>>> mediocre, at best.
>>
>> Actually, to me this is new. Can you give examples?
>
> I'm just relaying the message from somebody else, who famously said that
> databases are good at many things, but not especially good at any of them.
> It is tough call to prove that something is not the best, but let's try to
> find a reason. The most ubiquitous objects in physics are functions, and the
> most primitive functions are polynomials.
f: {} -> {}
is even more primitive.
> .... How do you represent polynomials in
> database?
CREATE TABLE Polynomials(
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE Monomials(
id INTEGER NOT NULL
degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
coefficient <YourFieldOfChoice> NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY(id, degree),
FOREIGN KEY(id) REFERENCES Polynomials(id)
);
Let <YourFieldOfChoice> be DOUBLE (even when it is actually not a field)
poyl42(X) := X^7 - 12 X ^ 5 + 14.123 X^2 + 42 X + 7
Store this into the databse;
INSERT INTO Polynomials(id) VALUES(42);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 7, 1.0);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 5, -12.0);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 2, 14.123);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 1, 42.0);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 1, 7.0);
> The simplest of all polynomials are linear polynomials, ...
No. The constant polynomials are even simpler, and the simplest polynomial
is the zero polynomial:
INSERT INTO Polynomials(id) VALUES(0); -- done no Monomials to store
(None of the queries above has been tested.)
> ... One can even be impressed by matrix
> multiplication query which is just relation's self-join followed by
> aggregation with group by. However, the success is short-lived, and query of
> matrix inverse is not expressible with standard relational operations.
I'd bet it is. You might first want to compute the determinant. Then use that
> aggregation with group by. However, the success is short-lived, and query of
> matrix inverse is not expressible with standard relational operations.
query to compute the matrix inverse. I suppose this requires recursive join
(transitive closure) iff the matrix size is not limited.
For an alternative approach you might want to read
http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_complete.html
and, in particular,
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Cyclic_Tag_System
.
>>> Still, I would suggest looking up there (rather than in "more practical"
>>> fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial matching of
>>> substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very
>>> important.
>>
>> I personally would stress "might" because I don't know how topology is
>> related to protein folding. This could be an interesting question, though.
>
> I'm just making a guess that application of topology would be something more
> significant that just architecture (or a similar level engineering
> discipline). ...
>>> Still, I would suggest looking up there (rather than in "more practical"
>>> fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial matching of
>>> substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very
>>> important.
>>
>> I personally would stress "might" because I don't know how topology is
>> related to protein folding. This could be an interesting question, though.
>
> I'm just making a guess that application of topology would be something more
> significant that just architecture (or a similar level engineering
I started with architecture. I also think that there are more fields of
application than architecture.
> ... Many CS researchers venture to do bold things, here is the
> example:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.6416
This looks interesting. I like tha categorial viewpoint of the paper.
So it might be worth reading it.
Norbert
Norbert_Paul
Feb 2, 2015, 12:46:18 PM2/2/15
to
Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:21:54 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are
>>> mediocre, at best.
>>
>> Actually, to me this is new. Can you give examples?
>
> I'm just relaying the message from somebody else, who famously said that
> databases are good at many things, but not especially good at any of them.
Who?
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:21:54 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> It is not a secret that [SQL] database applications in science are
>>> mediocre, at best.
>>
>> Actually, to me this is new. Can you give examples?
>
> I'm just relaying the message from somebody else, who famously said that
> databases are good at many things, but not especially good at any of them.
> It is tough call to prove that something is not the best, but let's try to
> find a reason. The most ubiquitous objects in physics are functions, and the
> most primitive functions are polynomials.
I would say the function
f: {} -> {}
is even more primitive.
> .... How do you represent polynomials in
f: {} -> {}
is even more primitive.
> database?
CREATE TABLE Polynomials(
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE Monomials(
id INTEGER NOT NULL
degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
coefficient <YourFieldOfChoice> NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY(id, degree),
FOREIGN KEY(id) REFERENCES Polynomials(id)
);
Let <YourFieldOfChoice> be DOUBLE (even when it is actually not a field)
Store this into the databse;
INSERT INTO Polynomials(id) VALUES(42);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 7, 1.0);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 5, -12.0);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 2, 14.123);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 1, 42.0);
INSERT INTO Monomials(id, degree, coefficient) VALUES(42, 1, 7.0);
> The simplest of all polynomials are linear polynomials, ...
No. The constant polynomials are even simpler, and the simplest polynomial
is the zero polynomial:
INSERT INTO Polynomials(id) VALUES(0); -- done no Monomials to store
(None of the queries above has been tested.)
> multiplication query which is just relation's self-join followed by
> aggregation with group by. However, the success is short-lived, and query of
> matrix inverse is not expressible with standard relational operations.
> aggregation with group by. However, the success is short-lived, and query of
> matrix inverse is not expressible with standard relational operations.
I'd bet it is. You might first want to compute the determinant. Then use that
query to compute the matrix inverse. I suppose this requires recursive join
(transitive closure) iff the matrix size is not limited.
For an alternative approach you might want to read
http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_complete.html
and, in particular,
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Cyclic_Tag_System
.
query to compute the matrix inverse. I suppose this requires recursive join
(transitive closure) iff the matrix size is not limited.
For an alternative approach you might want to read
http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_complete.html
and, in particular,
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Cyclic_Tag_System
.
>>> Still, I would suggest looking up there (rather than in "more practical"
>>> fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial matching of
>>> substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very
>>> important.
>>
>> I personally would stress "might" because I don't know how topology is
>> related to protein folding. This could be an interesting question, though.
>
> I'm just making a guess that application of topology would be something more
> significant that just architecture (or a similar level engineering
>>> fields. For example, chemical databases do some nontrivial matching of
>>> substances. Likewise, in protein chemistry topology might be very
>>> important.
>>
>> I personally would stress "might" because I don't know how topology is
>> related to protein folding. This could be an interesting question, though.
>
> I'm just making a guess that application of topology would be something more
> significant that just architecture (or a similar level engineering
> discipline). ...
I started with architecture. I also think that there are more fields of
application than architecture.
> ... Many CS researchers venture to do bold things, here is the
I started with architecture. I also think that there are more fields of
application than architecture.
> example:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.6416
Tegiri Nenashi
Feb 2, 2015, 1:18:09 PM2/2/15
to
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:29:28 PM UTC-8, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
> Please be advised that when I teach RDb Design, Normalisation is a major subject, and I approach it as science. The first thing I do is excise the abnormal "normal form" definitions which are marketed by the schizophrenics that wrote them, retaining the three Normal Forms that undamaged human beings need. Then I teach the science, complete with exercises that use several tables (frauds use single "relations" to construct their Straw Man arguments; papers; mathematical poofs). Then I teach the two scientific Normal Forms that are /informally/ but scientifically (at least to those who have their feet on the ground) defined in the Relational Model (the concrete Codd RM, not the 42 religious artefacts).
There are 2 sides of the issue. Is database normalization theory polished enough to be presentable to an average undergrad? My answer is no. However, is normalization topic a gem of database theory? Yes. Has it progressed since 1970s? Let's postpone this answer a little.
> Please be advised that when I teach RDb Design, Normalisation is a major subject, and I approach it as science. The first thing I do is excise the abnormal "normal form" definitions which are marketed by the schizophrenics that wrote them, retaining the three Normal Forms that undamaged human beings need. Then I teach the science, complete with exercises that use several tables (frauds use single "relations" to construct their Straw Man arguments; papers; mathematical poofs). Then I teach the two scientific Normal Forms that are /informally/ but scientifically (at least to those who have their feet on the ground) defined in the Relational Model (the concrete Codd RM, not the 42 religious artefacts).
> The fact that the theorists continue to define schizophrenic "normal forms", the purpose of which is to justify Record Filing Systems that are non-relational, in forty five years, stands as evidence that the theorists in our field understand only Record Filing systems.
1. The first foundation that was explored quite exhaustively in last couple decades was information measure (entropy). Is entropy "not scientific" enough for you?
2. Algebraic approach was also studied quite in depth. Remarkably, the major tool in algebraic approach is algebra of binary relations, and one of the main results is that relation with multivalued dependency is formally described by commutativity of relational composition.
To conclude, a typical database introductory course is quite odd. The first half studies relational algebra, but later almost nothing from that kit is utilized when teaching normalization theory.
Norbert_Paul
Feb 2, 2015, 1:22:02 PM2/2/15
to
Norbert_Paul wrote:
> CREATE TABLE Monomials(
> id INTEGER NOT NULL
> degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
> coefficient <YourFieldOfChoice> NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY(id, degree),
> FOREIGN KEY(id) REFERENCES Polynomials(id)
> );
CREATE TABLE Monomials(
id INTEGER NOT NULL
degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
coefficient <YourRingOfChoice> NOT NULL,
> CREATE TABLE Monomials(
> id INTEGER NOT NULL
> degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
> coefficient <YourFieldOfChoice> NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY(id, degree),
> FOREIGN KEY(id) REFERENCES Polynomials(id)
> );
CREATE TABLE Monomials(
id INTEGER NOT NULL
degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
Jan Hidders
Feb 2, 2015, 1:33:47 PM2/2/15
to
Op maandag 2 februari 2015 16:09:05 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > 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
> 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.
>
> > 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.
> > 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.
The floor is yours.
-- Jan Hidders
Jan Hidders
Feb 2, 2015, 1:54:27 PM2/2/15
to
Op maandag 2 februari 2015 16:53:05 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
-- Jan Hidders
> > On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:10:09 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> >
> > A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I withdraw my criticism.
>
> Ok.
>
> We are progressing very slowly.
>
> Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.
>
> I know that he inflates the value of his knowledge, whatever he is going to teach, by mentioning databases that are in 1NF. I know that he gives the well-known theoretical "definition" for what is suggested as 3NF. But what you do not know is, that definition is the usual, stupid, fractured, fragmented, definition that is only relevant to theoreticians.
>
> It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.
Interesting. So what is his definition of 3NF and how does it differ from Codd's? Is it just different in wording, or is it actually not equivalent?
> >
> > A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I withdraw my criticism.
>
> Ok.
>
> We are progressing very slowly.
>
> Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.
>
> I know that he inflates the value of his knowledge, whatever he is going to teach, by mentioning databases that are in 1NF. I know that he gives the well-known theoretical "definition" for what is suggested as 3NF. But what you do not know is, that definition is the usual, stupid, fractured, fragmented, definition that is only relevant to theoreticians.
>
> It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.
-- Jan Hidders
Tegiri Nenashi
Feb 2, 2015, 2:38:34 PM2/2/15
to
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> > .... How do you represent polynomials in
> > database?
>
> CREATE TABLE Polynomials(
> id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
> );
>
> CREATE TABLE Monomials(
> id INTEGER NOT NULL
> degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
> coefficient <YourFieldOfChoice> NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY(id, degree),
> FOREIGN KEY(id) REFERENCES Polynomials(id)
> );
Fair enough. I meant systems of multivariate polynomials, but sure you can have
> > .... How do you represent polynomials in
> > database?
>
> CREATE TABLE Polynomials(
> id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
> );
>
> CREATE TABLE Monomials(
> id INTEGER NOT NULL
> degree INTEGER NOT NULL,
> coefficient <YourFieldOfChoice> NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY(id, degree),
> FOREIGN KEY(id) REFERENCES Polynomials(id)
> );
table UnivariateMonomials
table MonomialProducts
table Polynomials
table PolynomialSystems
My question is how useful this is; have you seen such beast in the wild? Next some queries like finding product of the two polynomials is relatively easy, but how about "give me all systems which roots are zero dimensional varieties"?
> > ... One can even be impressed by matrix
> > multiplication query which is just relation's self-join followed by
> > aggregation with group by. However, the success is short-lived, and query of
> > matrix inverse is not expressible with standard relational operations.
>
> I'd bet it is. You might first want to compute the determinant. Then use that
> query to compute the matrix inverse. I suppose this requires recursive join
> (transitive closure) iff the matrix size is not limited.
M^* = 1 + M + M^2 +... = (1-M)^(-1)
However, I don't consider transitive closure as a part of relational algebra. It is something that belongs to algebra of binary relations, which as been married against its will. She is unhappy in her marriage because she is allowed to make love only on second day of each month (i.e. transitive closure operator is not total in relational algebra).
> > ... Many CS researchers venture to do bold things, here is the
> > example:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.6416
>
> This looks interesting. I like tha categorial viewpoint of the paper.
> So it might be worth reading it.
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 3, 2015, 8:46:14 AM2/3/15
to
Jan
That is difficult to express in your terms, because that process began just recently, and progress is slow, because there is no dictionary. And because the English doesn't work for you (I am sure that it is not a translation problem). Let me try anyway.
1. So you have the Codd definition, right ? Predates the donkey by decades; well-understood and accepted in the physical universe, etc. The 99%. Again, the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1971, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form.
"<trigger fear response>
<trigger self-importance>
<trigger future security>
Given a relation R{x-instance, y-instance}
if they (whatever "they" means) agree on the x-attributes, then they /must/ agree on the y-attributes
if that is the case then we say x functionally determines y"
Do I have that correct ?
Good.
3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [2] ?
If you do NOT see a difference, then you are operating at a sub-human level, and there is no point is the two of us wasting any further time. Please do not continue with this post.
If you DO see a difference, then good, continue with this post.
4. FYI, I perceive many differences. But before I enumerate them, there is a sticking point in my head, so let me get it out os the way, then I will continue.
5. Now I understand that the donkey means to transmit the well-known theoretical "definition", that the one percent know. By the Grace of God, when I know someone is intending to do something Q, and he does something less than his intent Q-p, my humanity, my mind kicks in, and fills the gap, in order to continue, without stopping the process and getting the pig to fix the difference (Q-p - Q), before carrying on. Except when the person is giving something from a position of authority. Donkey is teaching, that is a position of authority. We should stop the video there, at that point, and go home.
6. But because you and I appear to be more capable than the jungle bunny, I go past that, and my mind fills in the blanks. Once that is done, I cannot go back to the monkey's "definition" of the theoretical "definition". My intent is to continue with you. I know the theoretical "definition", which is:
____Given a relation R{x,y}
____if x->y then y is functionally dependent on x
____and not otherwise.
7. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [6] ?
If you do NOT see a difference, then you are operating at a sub-human level, and there is no point is the two of us wasting any further time. Please do not continue with this post.
If you DO see a difference, then good, continue with this post.
8. What is the difference, you ask me. Enumeration of differences. Between the definition and the theoretical "definition", of Functional Dependency. Because there are substantial differences, the theoretical "definition" is in fact, a non-definition. Not exhaustive:
a the difference is partly the wording, which is vastly different
--- the difference is not merely wording, it is much more than that
b the non-definition is missing both concepts, and imperatives that are contained in the definition
c the definition gives the concept of the KEY
--- the non-definition is missing the concept of the KEY
d the definition gives that one must have a KEY in order for an attribute to have something that it is, or is not, functionally dependent upon
--- the non-definition is absent that restriction
e the definition gives that in the event that there is a KEY, then the attribute must be functionally dependent on the KEY
--- the non-definition, since it does not have restriction (d) allows dependencies (we can't call it Functional Dependency, because that is defined) on non-key attributes
f the definition gives that if there is no KEY, there is nothing for the attribute to be functionally dependent upon
--- the definition gives that in that case, there are no functional dependencies
--- the non-definition, since it does not have restriction (d), since it allows violation of (e), allows dependencies where the definition prohibits it
g the definition gives the concept of the COMPOUND KEY, made up of more-than-one attribute
--- the non-definition is missing the concept of the COMPOUND KEY
h the definition gives that in the event that one has a COMPOUND KEY, then the attribute must be functionally dependent on the WHOLE COMPOUND KEY, and not part of the COMPOUND KEY
--- the definition gives that in any other case, there are no functional dependencies
--- the non-definition is missing that imperative, and its corollary, it allows dependencies on parts of a COMPOUND KEY
i the definition prohibits dependencies of attributes upon non-key attributes
--- the non-definition expressly permits dependencies of attributes upon non-key attributes
--- the non-definition permits violations of the definition
The differences are substantial, material, and too many to suggest that they are even comparable. I have not listed each violation, I have listed just one, I trust I have given enough specific information, such that you can figure that out for yourself. Since the non-definition expressly permits conditions that the definition expressly prohibits, the non-definition is a violation of the definition.
The non-definition is totally null and void.
> > It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.
Proved.
Now, stop arguing, non-defining, re-defining, and find something productive work to do employ your life force.
> > 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.
I have now.
> 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.
I have done that now.
Good night
Cheers
Derek
1. So you have the Codd definition, right ? Predates the donkey by decades; well-understood and accepted in the physical universe, etc. The 99%. Again, the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1971, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form.
____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
2. You have the nutty professor, who gives:
"<trigger fear response>
<trigger self-importance>
<trigger future security>
Given a relation R{x-instance, y-instance}
if they (whatever "they" means) agree on the x-attributes, then they /must/ agree on the y-attributes
if that is the case then we say x functionally determines y"
Do I have that correct ?
Good.
3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [2] ?
If you do NOT see a difference, then you are operating at a sub-human level, and there is no point is the two of us wasting any further time. Please do not continue with this post.
If you DO see a difference, then good, continue with this post.
4. FYI, I perceive many differences. But before I enumerate them, there is a sticking point in my head, so let me get it out os the way, then I will continue.
5. Now I understand that the donkey means to transmit the well-known theoretical "definition", that the one percent know. By the Grace of God, when I know someone is intending to do something Q, and he does something less than his intent Q-p, my humanity, my mind kicks in, and fills the gap, in order to continue, without stopping the process and getting the pig to fix the difference (Q-p - Q), before carrying on. Except when the person is giving something from a position of authority. Donkey is teaching, that is a position of authority. We should stop the video there, at that point, and go home.
6. But because you and I appear to be more capable than the jungle bunny, I go past that, and my mind fills in the blanks. Once that is done, I cannot go back to the monkey's "definition" of the theoretical "definition". My intent is to continue with you. I know the theoretical "definition", which is:
____Given a relation R{x,y}
____if x->y then y is functionally dependent on x
____and not otherwise.
7. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [6] ?
If you do NOT see a difference, then you are operating at a sub-human level, and there is no point is the two of us wasting any further time. Please do not continue with this post.
If you DO see a difference, then good, continue with this post.
8. What is the difference, you ask me. Enumeration of differences. Between the definition and the theoretical "definition", of Functional Dependency. Because there are substantial differences, the theoretical "definition" is in fact, a non-definition. Not exhaustive:
a the difference is partly the wording, which is vastly different
--- the difference is not merely wording, it is much more than that
b the non-definition is missing both concepts, and imperatives that are contained in the definition
c the definition gives the concept of the KEY
--- the non-definition is missing the concept of the KEY
d the definition gives that one must have a KEY in order for an attribute to have something that it is, or is not, functionally dependent upon
--- the non-definition is absent that restriction
e the definition gives that in the event that there is a KEY, then the attribute must be functionally dependent on the KEY
--- the non-definition, since it does not have restriction (d) allows dependencies (we can't call it Functional Dependency, because that is defined) on non-key attributes
f the definition gives that if there is no KEY, there is nothing for the attribute to be functionally dependent upon
--- the definition gives that in that case, there are no functional dependencies
--- the non-definition, since it does not have restriction (d), since it allows violation of (e), allows dependencies where the definition prohibits it
g the definition gives the concept of the COMPOUND KEY, made up of more-than-one attribute
--- the non-definition is missing the concept of the COMPOUND KEY
h the definition gives that in the event that one has a COMPOUND KEY, then the attribute must be functionally dependent on the WHOLE COMPOUND KEY, and not part of the COMPOUND KEY
--- the definition gives that in any other case, there are no functional dependencies
--- the non-definition is missing that imperative, and its corollary, it allows dependencies on parts of a COMPOUND KEY
i the definition prohibits dependencies of attributes upon non-key attributes
--- the non-definition expressly permits dependencies of attributes upon non-key attributes
--- the non-definition permits violations of the definition
The differences are substantial, material, and too many to suggest that they are even comparable. I have not listed each violation, I have listed just one, I trust I have given enough specific information, such that you can figure that out for yourself. Since the non-definition expressly permits conditions that the definition expressly prohibits, the non-definition is a violation of the definition.
The non-definition is totally null and void.
> > It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.
Now, stop arguing, non-defining, re-defining, and find something productive work to do employ your life force.
> > 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.
Good night
Cheers
Derek
Norbert_Paul
Feb 3, 2015, 1:10:20 PM2/3/15
to
Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> .... How do you represent polynomials in database?
> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>>> .... How do you represent polynomials in database?
> My question is how useful this is;
No. Your question was as cited above.
> ..., but how about "give me all systems which roots are zero dimensional
> varieties"?
If this requires to find the root, you could stumble into undamental problems:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory#Solvable_groups_and_solution_by_radicals
But maybe there is a way do decide "p has roots of dimension zero" without
actually solving the polynomial p.
>> I'd bet it is. You might first want to compute the determinant. Then use
>> that query to compute the matrix inverse. I suppose this requires recursive
>> join (transitive closure) iff the matrix size is not limited.
> Yes, transitive closure is required. It can also go the opposite way: given
> adjacency matrix of a graph, if we know it's inverse, then the adjacency
> matrix of transitive closure is the following matrix inverse
>
> M^* = 1 + M + M^2 +... = (1-M)^(-1)
Then I don't get it.
> However, I don't consider transitive closure as a part of relational algebra.
I prefer to distinguish between "relational algebra with transitive closure"
and "relational algebra without transitive closure".
See Page 527 (or Page 5)
14.3 LIMITATIONS OF RELATIONAL ALGEBRA
in
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~maier/TheoryBook/MAIER/C14.pdf .
> It is something that belongs to algebra of binary relations, which as been
> married against its will. She is unhappy in her marriage because she is
> allowed to make love only on second day of each month (i.e. transitive
> closure operator is not total in relational algebra).
relational algebra?
given
R(a,b) and S(b,c) .
Then
R NATJOIN S
PROJECT[a](R)
SELECT[b=7](S)
look like Relational Algebra expressions to me.
>>> ... Many CS researchers venture to do bold things, here is the example:
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.6416
>>
>> This looks interesting. I like tha categorial viewpoint of the paper. So it
>> might be worth reading it.
>
> That part is inaccessible to me. I wish somebody translated it to more
> pedestrian level.
without effort. This kind of papers cannot be read like novels. It sometimes is
hard work to understand the notions the authors use and follow their arguments.
I then often have to familiarize with a subject matter that is new to me. Hence
I used the word "might", because I cannot know in advance if I get any profit
from working through (aka "reading") the paper.
Tegiri Nenashi
Feb 3, 2015, 2:31:48 PM2/3/15
to
On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 10:10:20 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> > On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> >>> .... How do you represent polynomials in database?
> > My question is how useful this is;
>
> No. Your question was as cited above.
>
> > ..., but how about "give me all systems which roots are zero dimensional
> > varieties"?
>
> If this requires to find the root, you could stumble into undamental problems:
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory#Solvable_groups_and_solution_by_radicals
> But maybe there is a way do decide "p has roots of dimension zero" without
> actually solving the polynomial p.
Depends on the field.
> Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
> > On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-8, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> >>> .... How do you represent polynomials in database?
> > My question is how useful this is;
>
> No. Your question was as cited above.
>
> > ..., but how about "give me all systems which roots are zero dimensional
> > varieties"?
>
> If this requires to find the root, you could stumble into undamental problems:
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory#Solvable_groups_and_solution_by_radicals
> But maybe there is a way do decide "p has roots of dimension zero" without
> actually solving the polynomial p.
Berlekamp's algorithm works in univariate case.
Groubner basis is used in multivariate case.
However, this is starting to get off the topic (if databases are used in science). Sure they are, take for example relatively recent discovery of Higgs signal in a huge pile of CERN data (ref Dr. Maaike Limper). What I'm trying to convey here is the lack of impression with the tools that database technology can offer to a scientist in the field.
> > Yes, transitive closure is required. It can also go the opposite way: given
> > adjacency matrix of a graph, if we know it's inverse, then the adjacency
> > matrix of transitive closure is the following matrix inverse
> >
> > M^* = 1 + M + M^2 +... = (1-M)^(-1)
>
> Is this supposed to be a proof that transotove closure is required?
> Then I don't get it.
> > However, I don't consider transitive closure as a part of relational algebra.
>
> This is more a personal opinion you have.
> I prefer to distinguish between "relational algebra with transitive closure"
> and "relational algebra without transitive closure".
>
> See Page 527 (or Page 5)
> 14.3 LIMITATIONS OF RELATIONAL ALGEBRA
> in
> http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~maier/TheoryBook/MAIER/C14.pdf .
>
> > It is something that belongs to algebra of binary relations, which as been
> > married against its will. She is unhappy in her marriage because she is
> > allowed to make love only on second day of each month (i.e. transitive
> > closure operator is not total in relational algebra).
>
> How sad! Poor binary! But why are operaitons on binary relations not part of
> relational algebra?
>
> given
> R(a,b) and S(b,c) .
>
> Then
>
> R NATJOIN S
> PROJECT[a](R)
> SELECT[b=7](S)
>
> look like Relational Algebra expressions to me.
Classic Relational Algebra employs six basic operations: projection, restriction, join, union, set difference, and renaming. First, the set operators - union, and difference - admit only "attribute"-compatible operands. Second, several other operations - namely, restriction,projection, and renaming - are parametrized by relation attributes.
Compare this to algebra of binary relations.
However, this appearance of classic Relational Algebra is misleading. The operations can be amended so that resulting system don't suffer the above deficiencies. What can't be fixed are the two operations which are foreign to relational algebra:
- composition
- transitive closure
Sure composition can be expressed via join followed by projection. Then, transitive closure is some repetitive composition and union. However, while doing so, you would have to rename attributes, and explicit referencing attributes is something that makes your algebra deficient.
Nicola
Feb 3, 2015, 3:11:59 PM2/3/15
to
In article <855d2d8d-b395-4dff...@googlegroups.com>,
Nicola
PS: folks, nice to see this group populated again with some lively
discussions! I wish I had more time to read the posts carefully instead
of skimming through them (maybe in a few days)!
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Tegiri Nenashi <Tegiri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, again, I doubt
> there is a single scientist in the field who is seriously considering matrix
> operations done via SQL queries.
Well, there's (the appropriately named) MADlib (http://madlib.net) :)
> But, again, I doubt
> there is a single scientist in the field who is seriously considering matrix
> operations done via SQL queries.
Nicola
PS: folks, nice to see this group populated again with some lively
discussions! I wish I had more time to read the posts carefully instead
of skimming through them (maybe in a few days)!
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Jan Hidders
Feb 4, 2015, 4:50:15 AM2/4/15
to
Op dinsdag 3 februari 2015 14:46:14 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> 2. You have the nutty professor, who gives:
> "<trigger fear response>
> <trigger self-importance>
> <trigger future security>
> Given a relation R{x-instance, y-instance}
> if they (whatever "they" means) agree on the x-attributes, then they /must/ agree on the y-attributes
> if that is the case then we say x functionally determines y"
>
> Do I have that correct ?
He doesn't restrict restrict the relation to the X attributes and Y attributes, but yes, his definition is that it holds for the rows in the relation that if they agree on the X attributes (the attributes in the set X) then they agree on the Y attributes.
> Good.
Yes. :-)
> 3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [2] ?
Er .. well, yes. One is the definition of the concept of 3NF and the other of the concept of functional dependency. They *should* be different. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I assumed you were busy showing that the same concepts are differently defined by Codd and Boetticher.
-- Jan Hidders
> Jan
>
> > On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 05:54:27 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > Op maandag 2 februari 2015 16:53:05 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > > > On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:10:09 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I withdraw my criticism.
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > We are progressing very slowly.
> > >
> > > Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.
> > >
> > > I know that he inflates the value of his knowledge, whatever he is going to teach, by mentioning databases that are in 1NF. I know that he gives the well-known theoretical "definition" for what is suggested as 3NF. But what you do not know is, that definition is the usual, stupid, fractured, fragmented, definition that is only relevant to theoreticians.
> > >
> > > It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.
> >
> > Interesting. So what is his definition of 3NF and how does it differ from Codd's? Is it just different in wording, or is it actually not equivalent?
>
> That is difficult to express in your terms, because that process began just recently, and progress is slow, because there is no dictionary. And because the English doesn't work for you (I am sure that it is not a translation problem). Let me try anyway.
>
> 1. So you have the Codd definition, right ? Predates the donkey by decades; well-understood and accepted in the physical universe, etc. The 99%. Again, the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1971, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form.
> ____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
Roughly, yes. This formulation is good as mnemonic device, but should not be confused with the real definition since it has several technical problems, But for the current discussion I think it's close enough.
>
> > On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 05:54:27 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > Op maandag 2 februari 2015 16:53:05 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > > > On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:10:09 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does give the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. So I withdraw my criticism.
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > We are progressing very slowly.
> > >
> > > Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.
> > >
> > > I know that he inflates the value of his knowledge, whatever he is going to teach, by mentioning databases that are in 1NF. I know that he gives the well-known theoretical "definition" for what is suggested as 3NF. But what you do not know is, that definition is the usual, stupid, fractured, fragmented, definition that is only relevant to theoreticians.
> > >
> > > It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition.
> >
> > Interesting. So what is his definition of 3NF and how does it differ from Codd's? Is it just different in wording, or is it actually not equivalent?
>
> That is difficult to express in your terms, because that process began just recently, and progress is slow, because there is no dictionary. And because the English doesn't work for you (I am sure that it is not a translation problem). Let me try anyway.
>
> 1. So you have the Codd definition, right ? Predates the donkey by decades; well-understood and accepted in the physical universe, etc. The 99%. Again, the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1971, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form.
> ____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
> 2. You have the nutty professor, who gives:
> "<trigger fear response>
> <trigger self-importance>
> <trigger future security>
> Given a relation R{x-instance, y-instance}
> if they (whatever "they" means) agree on the x-attributes, then they /must/ agree on the y-attributes
> if that is the case then we say x functionally determines y"
>
> Do I have that correct ?
> Good.
Yes. :-)
> 3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [2] ?
-- Jan Hidders
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 6, 2015, 7:34:26 PM2/6/15
to
Jan
> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 20:50:15 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> Op dinsdag 3 februari 2015 14:46:14 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > Jan
> >
There is only one definition, for 3NF (Codd's 1971, quoted above).
I do not accept the theoreticians "definition" for 3NF. I have detailed that in the Normalisation thread. But you are free to mess with that non-definition. It places you in a position of capability far less that the implementers, as proved, and as will continue to be proved.
So the onus is on the theoreticians to use honest labels for their fragments. To label a fraction of X "X", is not only fraud, it means you are not working in this space, you are working in outer space, and as evidenced in many posts, you can't communicate with the people who you allege to be serving. We sit here and argue definitions and whores dressed up as virgins, and never get to dealing with the problem on the table.
Therefore (since Codd 1971 predated your fragment), and it is widely accepted and used, it is crazy to label your new kid "the real definition". you crippled kid is a fragment of the real thing.
Whether it has technical problems or not is another matter. If and when the definition of 3NF *does not work*, then we might expose the problems you allege. Until then, it is an unproved claim. And thus far, it has not been exposed in this thread. SO please stop wandering off into tangents.
> > 2. You have the nutty professor, who gives:
> > "<trigger fear response>
> > <trigger self-importance>
> > <trigger future security>
> > Given a relation R{x-instance, y-instance}
> > if they (whatever "they" means) agree on the x-attributes, then they /must/ agree on the y-attributes
> > if that is the case then we say x functionally determines y"
> >
> > Do I have that correct ?
>
> He doesn't restrict restrict the relation to the X attributes and Y attributes, but yes, his definition is that it holds for the rows in the relation that if they agree on the X attributes (the attributes in the set X) then they agree on the Y attributes.
>
> > Good.
>
> Yes. :-)
>
> > 3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [2] ?
>
> Er .. well, yes. One is the definition of the concept of 3NF and the other of the concept of functional dependency. They *should* be different. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I assumed you were busy showing that the same concepts are differently defined by Codd and Boetticher.
Oh God.
[1] is the definition of 3NF. (NB. not "the concept of")
[1] is the definition of Functional Dependency.
Yes, it gives both. I didn't know that you didn't know that. So much for theoreticians in this space.
[2] is the fragment of the definition for FD, that the theoreticians use. It is not the definition for FDs, which we have had since 1971. So you, not Codd, not I, have to use a different label. Otherwise you commit fraud and cripple the communication process.
Since we seem to have accepted "Normalisation" vs "Normalisation Theory" in that thread, which is moving slightly less slowly than this thread, since yours came decades afterwards, since yours is a fragment, I suggest labelling it "the Theoretical Functional Dependency Fragment" TFDF. We (those of who know, love, and use The Definition, the 99%, do not accept that a fragment is a definition, so you can't use the word "definition" in the name.
(Note also the veracity of [1]. Your fractured, fragmented non-definitions cause a primitive Record Filing system to be passed off as "Relational" (5NF means it "satisfies" your TFDF). But in fact, it fails 3NF (separate to failing the RM requirements), so I rejected the disgusting data model that you passed. So whatever it is that you do with your various fragments, is farr less than than the capability of an implementer who has not been infected with them.)
In the hope of a bit of progress, let me restate (not change) question 3:
> > 3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between the FD Definition contained in the 3NF Definition, and TFDF ?
My point being, since I opened this sub-thread, that under the label "Functional Dependency" for the unit, the nutty professor is teaching some disgusting fragment of FDs.
(In other units, he teaches how to dance with fragments, how to kiss and cuddle them, but this video was chosen by my colleagues because it is where he "defines" the fragment. It was along the lines of "look at what crap they are teaching the young at university level these days, no wonder our intake grads are incompetent", that the link was sent to me.)
And he is not even giving the TFDF correctly, which I both identify [4][6], and correct [7]. I am working streets ahead of you. I want to deal with the issue that TFDF is substantially different to FDs, and that is one of the reasons theoreticians in this space are crippled.
Cheers
Derek
> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 20:50:15 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
> Op dinsdag 3 februari 2015 14:46:14 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
> > Jan
> >
> > > > We are progressing very slowly.
> > > >
> > > > Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this video.
> > > >
> > 1. So you have the Codd definition, right ? Predates the donkey by decades; well-understood and accepted in the physical universe, etc. The 99%. Again, the unchanging law is, since you are not aware of it, since 1971, Codd's definition of Third Normal Form.
> > ____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
>
> Roughly, yes. This formulation is good as mnemonic device, but should not be confused with the real definition since it has several technical problems, But for the current discussion I think it's close enough.
The difference is definitions is severely hindering progress in any discussion with you. I repeat, this does not happen in other industries; it is unacceptable for theoreticians to have definitions that are different to the implementers, that pre-date the new "definitions" that the theoreticians have; it is fraud to call some isolated fragment of X, "X".
> > ____ "Every non-key attribute is Functionally Dependent on the Key, the whole Key, and nothing but the Key"
>
> Roughly, yes. This formulation is good as mnemonic device, but should not be confused with the real definition since it has several technical problems, But for the current discussion I think it's close enough.
There is only one definition, for 3NF (Codd's 1971, quoted above).
I do not accept the theoreticians "definition" for 3NF. I have detailed that in the Normalisation thread. But you are free to mess with that non-definition. It places you in a position of capability far less that the implementers, as proved, and as will continue to be proved.
So the onus is on the theoreticians to use honest labels for their fragments. To label a fraction of X "X", is not only fraud, it means you are not working in this space, you are working in outer space, and as evidenced in many posts, you can't communicate with the people who you allege to be serving. We sit here and argue definitions and whores dressed up as virgins, and never get to dealing with the problem on the table.
Therefore (since Codd 1971 predated your fragment), and it is widely accepted and used, it is crazy to label your new kid "the real definition". you crippled kid is a fragment of the real thing.
Whether it has technical problems or not is another matter. If and when the definition of 3NF *does not work*, then we might expose the problems you allege. Until then, it is an unproved claim. And thus far, it has not been exposed in this thread. SO please stop wandering off into tangents.
> > 2. You have the nutty professor, who gives:
> > "<trigger fear response>
> > <trigger self-importance>
> > <trigger future security>
> > Given a relation R{x-instance, y-instance}
> > if they (whatever "they" means) agree on the x-attributes, then they /must/ agree on the y-attributes
> > if that is the case then we say x functionally determines y"
> >
> > Do I have that correct ?
>
> He doesn't restrict restrict the relation to the X attributes and Y attributes, but yes, his definition is that it holds for the rows in the relation that if they agree on the X attributes (the attributes in the set X) then they agree on the Y attributes.
>
> > Good.
>
> Yes. :-)
>
> > 3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between [1] and [2] ?
>
> Er .. well, yes. One is the definition of the concept of 3NF and the other of the concept of functional dependency. They *should* be different. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I assumed you were busy showing that the same concepts are differently defined by Codd and Boetticher.
[1] is the definition of 3NF. (NB. not "the concept of")
[1] is the definition of Functional Dependency.
Yes, it gives both. I didn't know that you didn't know that. So much for theoreticians in this space.
[2] is the fragment of the definition for FD, that the theoreticians use. It is not the definition for FDs, which we have had since 1971. So you, not Codd, not I, have to use a different label. Otherwise you commit fraud and cripple the communication process.
Since we seem to have accepted "Normalisation" vs "Normalisation Theory" in that thread, which is moving slightly less slowly than this thread, since yours came decades afterwards, since yours is a fragment, I suggest labelling it "the Theoretical Functional Dependency Fragment" TFDF. We (those of who know, love, and use The Definition, the 99%, do not accept that a fragment is a definition, so you can't use the word "definition" in the name.
(Note also the veracity of [1]. Your fractured, fragmented non-definitions cause a primitive Record Filing system to be passed off as "Relational" (5NF means it "satisfies" your TFDF). But in fact, it fails 3NF (separate to failing the RM requirements), so I rejected the disgusting data model that you passed. So whatever it is that you do with your various fragments, is farr less than than the capability of an implementer who has not been infected with them.)
In the hope of a bit of progress, let me restate (not change) question 3:
> > 3. So, using all your powers as a human, do you perceive any difference between the FD Definition contained in the 3NF Definition, and TFDF ?
My point being, since I opened this sub-thread, that under the label "Functional Dependency" for the unit, the nutty professor is teaching some disgusting fragment of FDs.
(In other units, he teaches how to dance with fragments, how to kiss and cuddle them, but this video was chosen by my colleagues because it is where he "defines" the fragment. It was along the lines of "look at what crap they are teaching the young at university level these days, no wonder our intake grads are incompetent", that the link was sent to me.)
And he is not even giving the TFDF correctly, which I both identify [4][6], and correct [7]. I am working streets ahead of you. I want to deal with the issue that TFDF is substantially different to FDs, and that is one of the reasons theoreticians in this space are crippled.
Cheers
Derek
Cimode
Feb 16, 2015, 6:41:28 PM2/16/15
to
<< That is because this is a field which patiently awaits its time. I would rather discuss this, rather than importance (or lack of thereof) of nulls.>>
Agreed. Codd never limited the scope of enhancement of RM. Many of his writing open new areas of research and my guess is that the maturity time of RM will witness mathematics and concepts we are barely grasping today.
I am currently preparing a paper related to Physical Data Independence and what it may mean mathematically, this research led among other things to a possible definition of the negative relations.
Norbert_Paul
Feb 17, 2015, 2:13:06 PM2/17/15
to
Nicola wrote:
> In article<855d2d8d-b395-4dff...@googlegroups.com>, Tegiri
> Nenashi<Tegiri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But, again, I doubt there is a single scientist in the field who is
>> seriously considering matrix operations done via SQL queries.
>
> Well, there's (the appropriately named) MADlib (http://madlib.net) :)
But this completetly justifies Tegri's the statement that there is not a single
> In article<855d2d8d-b395-4dff...@googlegroups.com>, Tegiri
> Nenashi<Tegiri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But, again, I doubt there is a single scientist in the field who is
>> seriously considering matrix operations done via SQL queries.
>
> Well, there's (the appropriately named) MADlib (http://madlib.net) :)
scientist seriously considering matrix operations done via SQL queries:
It takes more than one single person to accomplish madlib.
Does "mad" refer to "SQL's madness" as stated in
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/parser/gram.y#L10319
?
> Nicola
>
> PS: folks, nice to see this group populated again with some lively
> discussions! I wish I had more time to read the posts carefully instead of
> skimming through them (maybe in a few days)!
Cheers.
Norbert
Nicola
Feb 17, 2015, 3:11:25 PM2/17/15
to
In article <mc03qp$8v2$1...@dont-email.me>,
:)
http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/vldb09-madskills.pdf
Nicola
Norbert_Paul <norbertpau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Does "mad" refer to "SQL's madness" as stated in
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/parser/gram.y#L10
> 319
No, it stands for Magnetic, Agile, Deep... acronyms gone out of control
> Does "mad" refer to "SQL's madness" as stated in
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/parser/gram.y#L10
> 319
:)
http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/vldb09-madskills.pdf
Nicola
Derek Asirvadem
Feb 18, 2015, 5:04:40 AM2/18/15
to
The first post in the SQL Bashing thread gives a couple of clues, as to Why database theoreticians are so crippled.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.databases.theory/m6Elb2HQEJw/JRrQxWfNkHMJ
Cheers
Derek
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.databases.theory/m6Elb2HQEJw/JRrQxWfNkHMJ
Cheers
Derek
0 new messages