The Theoretical Void in the relational Database Space - Normalisation

[Derek Asirvadem]

Dear people

Now there is a thread:
___ On Normalisation & the State of Normalisation
which is taking its course, and I don't want to interfere with the progress.

However, it has been proved, severally in that thread, as well as in others, many times, irrefutably, indubitably, indisputably, beyond a shadow of a doubt ... three invalid submissions, zero valid submissions, in three weks ... that

YOU THEORETICIANS who claim to theorise about this space CANNOT NORMALISE ANYTHING.

>>>>
I have received no submissions. Twenty two days since the task [38 attributes in 7 tables] was initially tabled, fifteen days since the current iteration commenced (with great detail and specific directions as above), and still no submissions.

This is proof that you guys cannot Normalise anything. Not by the normal Method. Not by your high-falutin theoretical method. Not by asking questions and getting them answered.

=========================================================================
* Thus you [theoreticians in the Relational Database space] have no right, no position, whatsoever, to tell people who can Normalise data, how to Normalise data.
* Thus you have no right, no position, whatsoever, to lift your nose, to feel superior in any way, to people who can Normalise.
* Regarding the very subject that you allege to be theoreticians in, you are not merely inferior, you are grossly incompetent, and completely impotent.
=========================================================================
<<<<

Sorry for shouting, but the massive ramifications of that simple truth, now that it has been exposed, is staggering. It might take a few days for me to settle down, the shock, the horror, still has me reeling. Over the decades, various colleagues have made statements to that effect (void since Codd), but I did'nt know enough to agree categorically, one way or the other. To have it proved, by exceedingly long threads, over and over, with repeated evidence, is a different thing.

I had three years hard labour at the TweedleDumb concentration camp, and I sure found out the nature of the TTM fraud, but I thought he was a stand-alone exception, that he was not the norm amongst you theoreticians, that you were capable, honest. What I have found out here, in the last two months is, God help us, the lot of you are TTM slaves.

If you can't Normalise, Relationally, the claim that you guys are somehow serving the Relational Database space, is completely implausible, impossible. You have to know at least what we know, in order to be theoretically more advanced than us, to theorise about better ways of doing it. You have to know at least how to Normalise, Relationally, in order to be serving this space.

You are supposed to be better than us, to have a deeper understanding of what we do, not worse, not abjectly impotent.

So whatever you are doing, all that dancing, prancing, and necromancing, it is not about serving us, it is not about the Relational Database space, it is about serving some other, thus far undeclared, purpose.

Now, you should know, from details in many of my posts, I do not blame each one of you, personally, for the theoretical void in this industry. I squarely blame those who write the books allegedly about the "relational model" and this space, full of fraud, trickery, deceit, pig poop. The cancer causing agents. And your teachers, who spread the cancer.

Since this is a new thread, I will name them again:

1. Authors
___C J Date (TweedleDee)
___Hugh Darwen (TweedleDumb, Andrew Warden, Harlot of Babylon)
___R Fagin
___F Pascal (not an author, just a back-up singer and dancer)
___Zaniolo
___Abiteboul (high priest of fraud)
___Hull
___Vianu
___ Any author that writes anything that directly supports the above
___ Any author that writes anything that directly contradicts Dr E F Codd

The cancer-causing agents.

2. Professors
who follow them, due to either stupidity and failing to do their job (ie. without verifying the pig poop themselves, before teaching it), or to being enslaved in an education system that teaches slavery.

The cancer spreaders. Unconscious perhaps, but spreaders nonetheless. Unlike ten years ago, our new hires are clueless.

Dr Gary Böticcher, Dr Jan Hidders, Dr Henning Köhler, to name a few.

3. Every Other Theoretician
The rest of you, each and every one personally, I charge with merely being enslaved, and swallowing the pig poop, without verifying the pig poop for yourself.

You have failed to notice that you have abstracted yourself from the space, so far, so as to be isolated from it. Your ignorance of the actual implementation that does exist, the knowledge of this space, is not acceptable.

The only exceptions, not by definition, but by virtue that they are not anti-relational, are those who *evidently* follow Codd.

___ Note that excludes those who *declare* that they follow Codd, such as J K Lowden, and Norbert Paul, because scratching the surface once or twice exposes the sad fact they they do not.
___ Sure that is unconscious, not purposeful, but again, such declarations that were made, were made from (at best) ignorance, and that is not acceptable. The declaration was not fraud, due to its lack of intent, but it was nevertheless false.
___ I liked them very much, and I executed not insignificant work for them, but I was also tricked, until bit by bit, the truth was exposed. (Refer the Normalisation and the Hierarchical Model threads.)
___ Note that Norbert had a very good intent, to understand this space, to hear from implementers. But he couldn't accept what he heard. Back to Isolation land, safe and secure.

----

You theoreticians who would like to theorise about the Relational Database space, who would perhaps like to fill the void at some point in the future, might, just might, be interested in how undamaged humans, practitioners who follow Codd's Relational Model (not the bag of anti-relational fragments your maggot-ridden teachers claim as the "relational model"; not the 17 algebraic fragments that in toto add up to far less than Codd's 3NF/FD definition) Normalise data.

We desperately need competent, able, theoreticians to fill the void in this space. And the first step is to understand this space, to overcome the chasm, the Grand Canyon, that separates us.

Is anyone interested in learning how Relational Normalisation is executed ? How the real universe that you claim to be serving does what you cannot do ?

Alternately, is there anyone out there who can save a tiny bit of theoretical face, and Normalise the 38 attributes, the 7 tables given.

Alternately, can anyone out there counter anything I have stated above (please be specific, and provide supporting evidence). Warning: maggots will get punctured. I would love to identify even one thing that a theoretician has invented, since Codd, that has been used in a commercial implementation platform.

----

Actually, the best option would be if you can get one of the cancer-causing agents to face me squarely. As per the evidence, while despatching slaves is not a hard task, it is not something that I like at all, not one bit. If you determine that you have a knight in front of you, stop, there is no fight to be had, get a knight from behind you to come up front and face off. The only thing I am interested in doing to a slave is to cut off your shackles, mental shackles, in this case.

But the causative agents won't come up front. They exist in their protected, controlled space, surrounded by slaves, where their preaching, their devil-worship, will be heard. In the light of day, in the real universe, they cease to exist. I don't need a sword, I need only the light of Truth.

Cheers
Derek

[Derek Asirvadem]

The following post (short) sets more context for this thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.databases.theory/5212JwYtip4/IdRoGm2wk_wJ

Cheers
Derek

[Erwin]

Op woensdag 25 februari 2015 13:36:55 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:
>
> I have received no submissions. ...

>
> This is proof that you guys cannot Normalise anything.
>

Vaguely reminiscent of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

[Derek Asirvadem]

You can't even read Latin, let alone choose the correct expression.

The evidenced fact, from which you cannot escape is,

____ post impugnatio, ex fuga

Which of course, you would shrink from, and twist into, electus via.

amentis

vermiculus

The only reminiscence is:
____ In itinere in Babylonem
___ _post clades
____ post interitum
____ post servitutem

LMAO!

[Derek Asirvadem]

Ok, it appears the theoreticians as a whole do not have your problem. They can do the arithmetic: three weeks; zero valid submissions. They don't need more time to disprove what has been proved.

But there is at least one of you with special needs. Very very special. Since you have reading problems, as evidenced many times, let me remind you that the floor is still open.

> On Wednesday, 25 February 2015 23:36:55 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> Alternately, is there anyone out there who can save a tiny bit of theoretical face, and Normalise the 38 attributes, the 7 tables given.

Be my guest. Go ahead, take the opportunity you have been begging for. Penetrate the vagueness and prove something.

[Erwin]

Op donderdag 26 februari 2015 03:57:37 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem:

>
> Ok, it appears the theoreticians as a whole do not have your problem. They can do the arithmetic: three weeks; zero valid submissions. They don't need more time to disprove what has been proved.
>
> But there is at least one of you with special needs. Very very special. Since you have reading problems, as evidenced many times, let me remind you that the floor is still open.

So very entertaining. Can't wait to get my next daily laugh. But then again, that's what clowns are for. Keep up the good work.

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Thursday, 26 February 2015 19:15:08 UTC+11, Erwin wrote:
>
> So very entertaining. Can't wait to get my next daily laugh. But then again, that's what clowns are for. Keep up the good work.

Evidenced fact is, you can't Normalise.

Evidenced fact is, you can't prove otherwise.

Evidenced fact is, distraction is your only solace.

Ho ho ho. Sickening, actually.