What is a database?

[Eric]

No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
"database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

[shyma...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:51:50 PM UTC-5, Eric wrote:
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
>
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

Mathematically a database is a set of computer programs that can always halt.

C-B

[James K. Lowden]

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 06:38:30 -0800 (PST)
shyma...@gmail.com wrote:

> Mathematically a database is a set of computer programs that can
> always halt.

mapped to a discussion that cannot?

--jkl

[Jan Hidders]

On 2013-11-30 17:51:50 +0000, Eric said:

> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

I have several. It depends on the circumstances, who I am talking to
and what subject I am teaching. Note that there is no such thing as a
wrong definition. A definition is just a statement clarifying what you
mean with the concept X. It can only be wrong if it does not correctly
represent what you have in mind if you use the term X. So it all
depends on you. It could be, and I'm guessing, that what you are really
asking is how community Y (e.g. database researchers) defines the
concept X.

So what do you need that definition for?

-- Jan Hidders

[Alexander Langer]

Am 01.12.2013 15:38, schrieb shyma...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:51:50 PM UTC-5, Eric wrote:
>> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
>>
>> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?
>
> Mathematically a database is a set of computer programs that can always halt.

Thats wrong. A database is not a program.
Database != Databasemanagement.

[Norbert_Paul]

Eric wrote:
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

Something I had to learn for an exam was something like the following:

"A database is a collection of data that is
- up-to-date, integrated and
- one common basis of information for all users of some application domain
where 'integrated' means that the organization of the data rather follows
'real-world' (aka application domain) interdependencies of the stored
information than software demands."

Norbert

[Eric]

Fair question. I found what I consider to be a rather dubious
definition. It's in a wiki, and I could replace it, but I thought I
would see what ideas I could find before going for my own replacement. I
don't want to quote the dubious definition yet since then people would
be inclined to just respond to that.

It's reasonable to want some more context too. The context is definitely
programming, but somE proportion of the audience are doing minor ad-hoc
projects, or things in very specialised niches, or just playing about,
rather that writing serious applications. I suspect that many in all of
those categories do not have much of a clue about databases.

[Jan Hidders]

On 2013-12-02 19:48:31 +0000, Eric said:

> On 2013-12-02, Jan Hidders <hid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-11-30 17:51:50 +0000, Eric said:
>>
>>> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
>>> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?
>>
>> I have several. It depends on the circumstances, who I am talking to
>> and what subject I am teaching. Note that there is no such thing as a
>> wrong definition. A definition is just a statement clarifying what you
>> mean with the concept X. It can only be wrong if it does not correctly
>> represent what you have in mind if you use the term X. So it all
>> depends on you. It could be, and I'm guessing, that what you are really
>> asking is how community Y (e.g. database researchers) defines the
>> concept X.
>>
>> So what do you need that definition for?
>
> Fair question. I found what I consider to be a rather dubious
> definition. It's in a wiki, and I could replace it, but I thought I
> would see what ideas I could find before going for my own replacement. I
> don't want to quote the dubious definition yet since then people would
> be inclined to just respond to that.

Fair enough.

> It's reasonable to want some more context too. The context is definitely
> programming, but somE proportion of the audience are doing minor ad-hoc
> projects, or things in very specialised niches, or just playing about,
> rather that writing serious applications. I suspect that many in all of
> those categories do not have much of a clue about databases.

I sense that what you actually want to do is to explain what DBMSs do,
why they do that and why that is relevant for the audience. Or do you
want to stress what it means to properly define a databas schema and
why that is important for them? Or all of the above? Note that this is
why many textbooks define these notions in the way that they do.

Let me clarify. I sometimes use the definition:

"A *database* is a collection of data that is managed by a DBMS."

But that does not really explain what DBMSs do an why they do that. So
let us reverse engineer for what type of collections of data they were
built:
- These are structured collections of data. (That's why you can define
a schema.)
- These are coherent, integrated collections of data. (That's why you
can define foreign keys.)
- These collections represent the current state of some part of the
world. (That's why we have update facilities.)
- The current state they represent is needed by a certain organization,
or parts of it, to function. (That's why we have query languages.)
- These collections need to correctly represent that state in order to
help the origanization. (That's why we have integrity checks.)
- These collections are accessed and used by one or more applications
or users. (That's why we have access control and concurrency
management.)
- The availability of the data crucial for the functioning of the
organzation. (That's why we have recovery mechanisms.)

Many textbooks simply list those properties as the defining
characteristics of a database. Just so that later on they can answer a
question such as "do I need to store this database in a DBMS?" with the
impressive sounding but contentless "of course, otherwise it would not
be a database, by definition!" ;-)

-- Jan Hidders

[Bernard Peek]

On 30/11/13 17:51, Eric wrote:
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?
>

An organised collection of information, is how it was described to me.
No need for this new-fangled electrickery,


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Erwin]

Op maandag 2 december 2013 23:05:53 UTC+1 schreef Bernard Peek:

Sometimes it is further qualified as "an organized collection of __machine-readable__ data".

To eliminate the good old card filing cabinet from qualifying as a database.

It does not eliminate Excel spreadsheets and even plain csv files as being a database, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If Excel and Notepad are to be considered as systems for managing databases too, perhaps that's a good starter for pointing out the key advantages of "real" DBMS software.

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 04:51:50 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

An ordered, structured collection of data.

Notes:
- Ordering and structuring is achieved via correct and formal Normalisation
- Normalisation eliminates duplicates, therefore "unduplicated" need not be stated, but add that term if necessary
- Ordering and structuring produces *Integration*, so that need not be stated, but add that term if necessary
- The definition must exclude any application dependency (by virtue of Codd's definition to that effect). It is a data-base, not an application storage facility. Database=application may be common, but it is dead wrong.
- Card filing systems; binders; spreadsheets qualify, as long *as they are ordered and structured*
- 95% of the data storage implementations out there do not qualify, because they are unordered and unstructured; formal or correct Normalisation is absent.

Cheers
Derek

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 04:51:50 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>

> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

An ordered, structured collection of data.

Good question. Since some time has passed since 1970, when the seminal work of Dr E F Codd changed the database landscape permanently, one might subsequently ask:

What is your short, accurate definition of the term Relational Database ?

An ordered, structured collection of data, in which the order and structure is implemented in Relational Keys.

Notes:
- The order and structure provide relationships in databases; here we have a qualifier on that ordering and structuring
- If your tables are all keyed on surrogates, you have a pre-1970 record filing system, nowhere near a database. They are files, not tables.

Cheers
Derek

[Eric]

On 2014-02-25, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 04:51:50 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>>
>> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
>> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?
>
> An ordered, structured collection of data.

That could be good, depending on what you mean by "ordered". Or
"structured", but that seems less ambiguous.

[Derek Asirvadem]

One answer, really, but in two levels, given the non-computer consideration, which I think is good to maintain. It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside that.

Qualifier. I do not believe in the concept of private definitions. That leads to insanity and creating a reality that is different from everyone else. This is IT and it is 2014, so the definitions those that exist in that context. Definitions from authorities are fine with me. Given the ever-changing garbage on wiki, definitions must exclude that. Hopefully that eliminates the ambiguity. The insane and the frauds introduce ambiguity and doubt, honest professionals destroy it.

> > Database: An ordered, structured collection of data.

>
> Notes:
> - Ordering and structuring is achieved via correct and formal Normalisation
> - Normalisation eliminates duplicates, therefore "unduplicated" need not be stated, but add that term if necessary
> - Ordering and structuring produces *Integration*, so that need not be stated, but add that term if necessary
> - The definition must exclude any application dependency (by virtue of Codd's definition to that effect). It is a data-base, not an application storage facility. Database=application may be common, but it is dead wrong.
> - Card filing systems; binders; spreadsheets qualify, as long *as they are ordered and structured*
> - 95% of the data storage implementations out there do not qualify, because they are unordered and unstructured; formal or correct Normalisation is absent.

1. General
Ordered and structured according to the normal (specifically not abnormal or insane) logical (specifically not the arty variety, because this is a logical task) human (specifically not sub-human or damaged) mind.

We do not need to waste time evaluating propositions that, by definition, are excluded.

2. Computer Systems
Since Dr E F Codd wrote his seminal work, the Relational Model, in 1970, since it is transformed the entire database industry (we have had great platforms since 1984), since it is the de facto the standard for database design and the treatment of data, that should be the measure against which any implementation is evaluated. And any definitions relating to data should be taken from that.

Since there has been a mountain of garbage written by others who claim to be "mathematicians" and "experts" on the Relational Model, but in fact they are either grossly incompetent, or purposefully subversive, that mountain of garbage, non-relational because it contradicts the RM, is excluded.

Structured:
- As per the RM.
- That means Normalised
--- That means Normalised (a) according to the Normalisation given in the RM, and (b) Normalisation as a principle (which existed before the RM, and which the RM did not have to explain in detail).
--- That therefore excludes the abnormal, frgamented pseudo-scientific nonsense marketed as "normal forms"

Ordered:
- As per the RM.
- Look up his reference to Order, and to Ordinals

> It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside that.

The deranged pseudo-scientists create "definitions" that are fragmented, isolated, located in outer space. They are irrelevant to undamaged humans, to the real world.

Cheers
Derek

[James K. Lowden]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not believe in the concept of private definitions.

You may not realize it, but you demonstrate great affinity for private
definitions: the ones that exist between your ears and never escape.

The question

what you mean by "ordered"

is not answered by

normal human logic

The question

what *you* think the Null Problem is

is not answered by

Feel free to supply an authoritative definition

Those answers are dodges; they prevent intelligent discussion by
forestalling definition of the terms.

I expect you will now call me names for pointing that out. I have a
fancy term for that, too: an ad hominem attack.

--jkl

[Jan Hidders]

On 2014-02-27 01:44:55 +0000, Derek Asirvadem said:

>>
>> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 07:40:05 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-25, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> An ordered, structured collection of data.
>>
>> That could be good, depending on what you mean by "ordered". Or
>> "structured", but that seems less ambiguous.
>
> One answer, really, but in two levels, given the non-computer
> consideration, which I think is good to maintain. It is normal human
> logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside that.
>
> Qualifier. I do not believe in the concept of private definitions.

Funny that. I don't believe in public definitions. All a definition is
and can do is establish how a certain person or group cares to assign a
meaning to a word or phrase, so in that sense it is always private. It
tells you nothing about the real world, except what the definer means
with a certain word.

-- Jan Hidders

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 15:15:10 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:

Last year, your proved to be one who engages in argument, but lacks the honestly to close any point, therefore preventing resolution of any kind. And one who is so fragmented that any discussion is cannot be had. I will not be engaging with you this year, particularly when you post in the same manner. If anyone wants to genuinely understand another, they have to be open, you are a clam.

It doesn't matter what you *TELL* us you are, what you are is already proved in your posts and emails.

> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:44:55 -0800 (PST)
> Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > I do not believe in the concept of private definitions.
>

> You may not realize it, but you demonstrate great affinity for private
> definitions: the ones that exist between your ears and never escape.

Ok, so you are not only obsessing about me, you are obsessing about my thoughts. Being an authority does have its burdens.

> The question

>
> what you mean by "ordered"
>

> is not answered by
>
> normal human logic

a. There you go, as usual, LYING.

I did not answer the question with that.

b. There you go, as usual, FRAGMENTING.

Breaking a structure into tiny fragments; then isolating your fragments, such that there are meaningless; and then wailing that your isolated fragments are meaningless to you. Priceless.

I did not answer the question with that isolated meaningless fragment. The fragments are yours, and yours alone. I agree, yes, your fragment is meaningless; it doesn't understand the question.

If you want to take a stab at being an honest, undamaged human being, read the complete post; try to understand it (as opposed to arguing with every piece of it); ask questions about anything you do not understand. Of course, breaking structures up into fragments will prevent that, so you will have to find another way to service your addiction. Do not break up any post of mine, keep reading the entire post as one single atomic article, until you understand it.

You may never understand it, but that's ok, that's a separate point. There is a mountain of evidence that you have flooded the internet with, proving that you do not understand databases.

> The question
>
> what *you* think the Null Problem is
>
> is not answered by
>
> Feel free to supply an authoritative definition

So you don't have a definition either.

But you are going to argue with me anyway.

Priceless.

--

Listen, you self-declared theoretical expert. Whether it is an answer or not is not the point. The point is, I have killed the argument about it, so that we (ok, not you) can progress with the rest of the discussion, without getting bogged down at the definition stage. That is normal human operation. But not you, you can't stand that, you're evidently addicted to the minor arguments, at every stage, and incapable of reaching any goal in a joint human endeavour.

It is a common characteristic of insane people, to obsess about little things, and thus entirely neglect the big things in life.

> Those answers are dodges; they prevent intelligent discussion by
> forestalling definition of the terms.

Really ? You are still defining that ? Haven't you heard, that was defined decades ago. By authorities, with more brains than you or I. I have enough brains not to define, from scratch, what is already defined. Evidently you don't, you are still scratching.

Google for "reinventing the wheel". People who are completely isolated from the rest of humanity are forever doing that. Yes. Both. Googling. And reinventing the wheel.

> I expect you will now call me names for pointing that out.

Pointing what out ?

You have not pointed out anything. Nor have you contributed to the thread. All you have done is attack something that you evidently can't understand, and provide further, consistent, evidence of
a. your disgusting dishonesty
b. your method of "thinking" (you already know what humans call that).

> I have a
> fancy term for that, too: an ad hominem attack.

Ok, (c) evidently, you are a man of fancy words as well.

I couldn't care less, whether my posts or answers are satisfactory, or not, to people who are evidently [by the evidence provided in your posts] operating at less than full human capacity. I am here for the undamaged.

If I don't answer your posts in future, it means, just keep reading this post as the response to each of your posts. I will pray for you.

Guffaws
Derek

[Erwin...@ikan.be]

"It doesn't matter what you *TELL* us you are, what you are is already proved in your posts and emails. "

Now why would this make me grin like it does ...

[Erwin...@ikan.be]

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:27:20 PM UTC+1, Jan Hidders wrote:
> On 2014-02-27 01:44:55 +0000, Derek Asirvadem said:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 07:40:05 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>

> >>> On 2014-02-25, Derek Asirvadem <> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> An ordered, structured collection of data.
>
> >>
>
> >> That could be good, depending on what you mean by "ordered". Or
>
> >> "structured", but that seems less ambiguous.
>
> >
>
> > One answer, really, but in two levels, given the non-computer
>
> > consideration, which I think is good to maintain. It is normal human
>
> > logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside that.
>
> >
>
> > Qualifier. I do not believe in the concept of private definitions.
>
>
>
> Funny that. I don't believe in public definitions. All a definition is
>
> and can do is establish how a certain person or group cares to assign a
>
> meaning to a word or phrase, so in that sense it is always private. It
>
> tells you nothing about the real world, except what the definer means
>
> with a certain word.
>
>
>
> -- Jan Hidders

And I personally do not believe in protected definitions.

Everyone should be free to redefine any term according to personal preference.

The ensuing confusion is actually a blessing for the economy.

(Sorry, just couldn't resist.)

[Derek Asirvadem]

Ok. We can proceed, as long as ...

In that case, your definition of a definition is your private definition.

It is not worth a response.

It is not a "word". It is a technical term.

Arguing about established public definitions means that either you are unable to comply with them, or your intent is to subvert them.

-- I --

It is the disease of the current generation, that they are self-obsessed, self-centred; there have no knowledge of history. It is very sad for one such as I, to witness, over and over again, one development team after another, working out for themselves: what a transaction is; what the best practice is; what OLTP is; oh, oh oh, they need a construct like Optimistic Locking (but they don't know the term); developing it for themselves. It takes decades.

Eventually the company tires of such idiots, or runs out of patience, or runs out of cash and places a finite end to the project budget, and hires me to educate them. I do not sit there playing devil's advocate, and discussing terms, coming up with group definitions of group hugs. That will take a year. I supply a service called Education. That takes days. I give them terms, and the technical definition of those terms (public, standard, accepted definitions, not private ones, definined decades ago, my minds greater than mine), then I give them methods.

Education is a one-way street. If it is a two-way street, it is not education (although some claim it as such, but that is fraud).

Absolutely every single person on the courses always thanks me, specifically for showing them the complete and entire method of how to write their code such that it never deadlocks; promotes high concurrency and high transaction volumes; etc; etc. Absolutely everyone says "I didn't know that there was a method; I didn't know that the term was defined, or that the method existed since the 1960's ... I was just creating it from scratch".

The disease of the current generation.

Education cures ignorance, that is its job.

Discussion, and private definitions, are limited to the sum of the knowledge of the participants, and these days, since they lack genuine education, that sum is very low.

Therefore you can feel free to have your groups and your discussions, and come up with private definitions. I will not be participating. I am quite happy with, and my customers beg for, public definitions, that kills the discussion and the groups and the private definitions. I am here to contribute, for anyone seeking knowledge.

-- II --

Krüger & Dunning wrote a great paper on this subject:
http://www.softwaregems.com.au/Documents/Reference/Unskilled%20&%20Unaware%201999.pdf

Of course, the powers that are destroying education attacked it, with excreta passed off as knowledge, but the excreta was given a bit of credence by those whose education had already been destroyed, so along with their research students, they flushed the excreta out with an update:
http://www.softwaregems.com.au/Documents/Reference/Unskilled%20&%20Unaware%202008.pdf

I charge twice my daily consulting rate for education. Genuine education means that I have to determine and overcome the obstacles in each person, and that always includes a bit of psychology. On a forum such as cdt, it is not possible to deliver education in the normal manner (sure, some "get educated", but that is not education), nor to overcome the obstacles (refer to the JKL post above and my response). Further, the context is discussion and argument at best, a two-way street, so education is not reasonably possible. Therefore please read and absorb the first paper. And if there is anything you feel like attacking, it will almost certainly be answered in the second paper.

-- III --

The following are public, accepted, technical definitions:
- the Null Problem
- the Relational Model
--- Order and Ordinals
- Normalisation (yes, there is a lot of false info out there, so that one might need filtering)
--- both pre-1970 Normalisation, and specifically Relational Normalisation
etc.
and if there is no argument, then:
- database

The thread is "what exactly is a database". The thread is not "let's discuss and form a new definition for { database | null | order | normalisation }". I am participating in the former. You are participating in the latter, which prevents progress in the former. I invite you to stop that wasteful effort and start participating in the thread ...

> Arguing about established public definitions means that either you are unable to comply with them, or your intent is to subvert them.

... otherwise you will be, at best, adding nothing to the thread, and at worst, subverting the thread.

That is precisely why, in the real world, at least the educated portion of it, we have defined terms. So that we have an agreed common ground, so that we can progress and reach goals, as opposed to discussing them.

Cheers
Derek

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 22:56:41 UTC+11, Erwin...@ikan.be wrote:
>
> And I personally do not believe in protected definitions.
> Everyone should be free to redefine any term according to personal preference.

That is fine if you live alone on a deserted island in the pacific.

But if you operate in the normal human society, that is rebellion against authority.

That is a justification for committing fraud, theft, rape, murder, mayhem. You sell someone a "database" for six figures, and it turns out, why, you have a private definition of it. The customer is expecting the public definition of database, and you are supplying a filing system, no doubt written "in a D". That will land you in a private cell, so that humanity is protected from the likes of you. And if you keep denying the public definition, you will end up in a asylum for the criminally insane.

Or a deserted island. Madagascar, perhaps.

All frauds and serial killers have the same tired excuse.

> The ensuing confusion is actually a blessing for the economy.

That's exactly right. I am surprised that you admit it openly.

You operate in a black or secret economy. Most of humanity operates in the open, a white economy. Sure, it is a blessing for yours. It is a subversive curse of ours. History has not changed for centuries.

Cheers
Derek

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 22:49:30 UTC+11, Erwin...@ikan.be wrote:
>
> Now why would this make me grin like it does ...

Evidently because you have a serious flatulence problem, and the bodily movements caused by reading my post, eased it a bit.

Don't shift about too much, you will wake the neighbours.

[Jan Hidders]

On 2014-02-27 12:42:47 +0000, Derek Asirvadem said:

>>
>> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 22:27:20 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-02-27 01:44:55 +0000, Derek Asirvadem said:
>>
>>> One answer, really, but in two levels, given the non-computer> >
>>> consideration, which I think is good to maintain. It is normal human>
>>> > logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside
>>> that.
>>
>>> Qualifier. I do not believe in the concept of private definitions.
>>
>> Funny that. I don't believe in public definitions. All a definition is>
>> and can do is establish how a certain person or group cares to assign
>> a> meaning to a word or phrase, so in that sense it is always private.
>> It> tells you nothing about the real world, except what the definer
>> means> with a certain word.
>
> Ok. We can proceed, as long as ...
>
> In that case, your definition of a definition is your private definition.

Unless we agree on one, and then it is *our* private definition, and
then we can have a meaningful and fruitful discussion about it.

I'm afraid that for the moment I have to leave your other points for
what they are because I have to go and prepare a few lectures on, you
know, MVCC and optimistic concurrency management. But you already knew
that, didn't you? :-)

-- Jan Hidders

[Eric]

On 2014-02-27, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 07:40:05 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-25, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > An ordered, structured collection of data.
>>
>> That could be good, depending on what you mean by "ordered". Or
>> "structured", but that seems less ambiguous.
>
> One answer, really, but in two levels, given the non-computer
> consideration, which I think is good to maintain. It is normal human
> logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside that.
>

<Qualifier snipped>
>
<unnecessary repetition of past post snipped>

> 1. General
> Ordered and structured according to the normal (specifically not abnormal
> or insane) logical (specifically not the arty variety, because this is
> a logical task) human (specifically not sub-human or damaged) mind.

A non-answer, since what I was asking for is the definitions of the
words you used.

I am not going to quote the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary at you,
you can look for yourself, but the verb "to order", of which "ordered"
is the past participle, has at least 7 meanings. Which, if any, of them
refers to a database?

But I'll accept "structured".

> We do not need to waste time evaluating propositions that, by definition,
> are excluded.

Unfortunately you usually wish to exclude things that others do not. You
do not give your reasons, but ignore or disparage theirs.

> 2. Computer Systems
> Since Dr E F Codd wrote his seminal work, the Relational Model, in 1970,
> since it is transformed the entire database industry (we have had great
> platforms since 1984), since it is the de facto the standard for database
> design and the treatment of data, that should be the measure against
> which any implementation is evaluated. And any definitions relating to
> data should be taken from that.

<opinion snipped>

> Structured:
> - As per the RM.
> - That means Normalised

Your authority for "structured" = "normalised"?

<more weirdness snipped>

> Ordered:
> - As per the RM.
> - Look up his reference to Order, and to Ordinals

Look up where? In the original paper, apart from the use of the business
term "orders" in examples, the only mentions of order are with respect
to domain or column ordering, and "order independence". The latter rules
out some of the possible meanings of "ordered", and removes any possible
relevance for "ordinal", a word that does not appear in the paper at all.

>> It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that,
>> not outside that.

If only we could agree on what "normal human logic" means.

> The deranged pseudo-scientists create "definitions" that are fragmented,
> isolated, located in outer space. They are irrelevant to undamaged
> humans, to the real world.

An ad hominem attack on unnamed persons does not constitute either an
answer or an argument.

[Erwin...@ikan.be]

MVCC and optimistic concurrency management is only for retards who don't know how to do transactions properly. If you just follow Derek standards, you won't ever need any of that crap, and you'll certainly never bring the system down on its knees.

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Friday, 28 February 2014 08:03:19 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> > On 2014-02-27, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 07:40:05 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> >>> On 2014-02-25, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > An ordered, structured collection of data.
> >> >> That could be good, depending on what you mean by "ordered". Or
> >> "structured", but that seems less ambiguous.
> >
> > One answer, really, but in two levels, given the non-computer
> > consideration, which I think is good to maintain. It is normal human
> > logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that, not outside that.
> >
> <Qualifier snipped>
> >
> <unnecessary repetition of past post snipped>
> > 1. General
> > Ordered and structured according to the normal (specifically not abnormal
> > or insane) logical (specifically not the arty variety, because this is
> > a logical task) human (specifically not sub-human or damaged) mind.
> A non-answer, since what I was asking for is the definitions of the
> words you used.

Well, you need to be more precise in your English. I was answering your post, not reading your mind.

> A non-answer

All my colleagues understand it, and accept it. (More, later ... for now I will maintain your sequence.)

> I am not going to quote the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary at you,

Ok. But I have no issue if you do.

> you can look for yourself,

Thanks but the memory remains in working order, I do not have to read definitions over and over and over again. The fact that experience matches the definitions, reinforce the definitions, so they become stronger. One experiences a state of euphoria.

But I looked it up anyway, and nothing has changed.

> but the verb "to order", of which "ordered"
> is the past participle, has at least 7 meanings. Which, if any, of them
> refers to a database?

a. You haven't been able to figure that out ?

After you carefully choose meanings and definitions, and after your experience starts matching those definitions (signalling that you are right about them), you will be well prepared for experiencing euphoria. Until then, I am afraid you will be searching texts for what others have acquired decades ago.

b. Consider this. Why are you limiting yourself to *one* definition or meaning of the word ? The universe is integrated. There is no definitive public meaning of the word Order that contradicts the other meanings.

(Except on this thread, where some people cannot even get their heads around even one single meaning, and insist on replacing published definitions with personal fantasies. They live in a state of chaos, the opposite of order. You have no idea how grateful I am, that you are not doing that.)

c. Note that there is a separate and distinct state of euphoria, that occurs when one realises that there is order in the universe; that Order has a root meaning; that all the meanings of Order are consistent; that the order of meanings relates (in order) to the root meaning and its derivatives. That second euphoric state is available to everyone, but of course, it must be identified as a real possibility, by those who have it. Hence my offering to you.

> But I'll accept "structured".

Alleluia. One foundation stone for your house has been laid.

-----------
Ordered [d]
-----------
Ok, so on the basis of your acceptance of *Structured*, there is good chance that we can progress and close *Ordered*.

For the [1. General] category, and using your choice of public definition, which of course I accept without further ado:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/order
I find the following completely acceptable. Please see if you agree, we can then agree on two references, and then progress with the rest of the thread.

---------------------
Ordered [d] 1 General
---------------------

Origin (first and foremost, and noting all meanings of "row, series, rank")
------

Noun
----

1
1.1
1.2 (The authority being scientific principles re information)
1.3 Ditto
(1.4 I enjoy a certain euphoria (a third a distinct one), precisely because the Order is prescribed by an ecclesiastic authority, which was ordained (there is that word again!) by God, but that may be a bit beyond what can be expected of the participants here. The universe is fully integrated, yes. So mark [1.4] as joyfully accepted by me, but not expected to be accepted by you.)

2 (The authority being scientific principles re information)
2.1 (Noting that your initial post is exactly that)
2.2 (Noting that *Database* is the result of the entire set of Orders (ouch) that apply)
2.3 (The authority being scientific principles re information)

3 (Obviously applying to data, information, only)
3.2 & 3.3 Rank
Oxford misses the relevance of Rank, Ordinal, and limits its application to ecclesiastic. It isn't. Order means Rank (refer to the Origin). At least Codd and I do not exclude Rank as a meaning of Order, and specifically assert it when dealing with data.

5
5.1

8 (Noting that we must make the data that is being filed uniform, before any Normalisation or Structuring can take place.)

9 (In general)
9.2 (In application)
9.3 (The whole song and dance, yes. Remove "square")

Verb
----

3 (the most important, and the most applicable here: the collection of data is [well] Ordered. Which of course refers back to the noun, which identifies the kind of Ordering that applies to data)

-----------------------------
Ordered [d] 2 Computer System
-----------------------------

Actually, it is the same as for [1. General], so I won't repeat. With the addition of:

Verb
----

1 (applicable standards and the RM are the authoritative instruction for the type of Ordering)
1.2 Ditto

The added authorities are:
- Computer Science principles re data analysis
- Dr E F Codd, the RM
which I understand you accept. And of course, taking those directives and prescriptions to be Orders.

> > We do not need to waste time evaluating propositions that, by definition,
> > are excluded.
>
> Unfortunately you usually wish to exclude things that others do not.

1. Nonsense. I have specifically excluded only private definitions; I have not excluded anything else (name one). If you are sincere about the question in your thread, it might be a good idea to exclude the evaluation of 6 billion or somewhat less private opinions. Otherwise we will be here for years.

Ok, I have also excluded the mental gyrations of asylum dwellers, that have been marketed as "science" or "the relational model". But those are easily determined and nailed, as when you bring them up, and so far, gratefully, you have not.

2. Count the number of items you have "snipped". Notice you have been doing the snipping. That is exclusion. Stop demanding that others refrain from what you do yourself, it is hypocrisy. Or, accept that some exclusions are valid, normal; don't labour to mention them (it is normal); and get on with the thread.

> You
> do not give your reasons, but ignore or disparage theirs.

Er, they did *not* give reasons, they gave lunacy. It does not invite reasoning, it invites disparagement. If I accept that lunacy as "reason", I would be joining them, they would infect me. No thanks.

I do not have the power to relieve the disparaged state of the insane.

Please, identify anything *relevant* that others have proposed, that I excluded, and I will respond to it.

> > 2. Computer Systems
> > Since Dr E F Codd wrote his seminal work, the Relational Model, in 1970,
> > since it is transformed the entire database industry (we have had great
> > platforms since 1984), since it is the de facto the standard for database
> > design and the treatment of data, that should be the measure against
> > which any implementation is evaluated. And any definitions relating to
> > data should be taken from that.
> <opinion snipped>
> > Structured:
> > - As per the RM.
> > - That means Normalised

(I must register, you appear to accept that.)

> Your authority for "structured" = "normalised"?

Codd was, but he is no longer with us. What is required here is the genuine understanding and application of the RM. Decades of doing so, leads to advancements and progressions and faster methods (ie. not additions). Once you lay bricks perfectly, you might devise a machine that lays bricks; a ruler that informs you that you are deviating from the straight line long before the naked eye can pick that up.

Er, I am the authority, as a faithful disciple of Codd, following the theory since 1976 and theory-applied-as-practice, exclusively, since 1987.

The marketed "authorities" have not, in forty five years, delivered anything to that effect, or any application of, or any advancement (genuine progression) of the RM. I have. As per the mountain of evidence they themselves have published, they have (a) no understanding of the RM (yes, they do understand a few fragments of it), and (b) they publish weird crap which is not in the RM and fraudulently purport it to "be the RM". Two distinct crimes. So there is no point in looking for authoritative references from the false authorities that have delivered nothing in 45 years.

In forty five years they have delivered abnormal and fragments "normal forms", devoid of method and normality, in the form of "mathematical definitions", but they have not produced a method or a "mathematical definition" for the Relational Normal Form that Codd provided, or a method to achieve that. I have.

I am not aware of any other genuine authorities on this subject. (Anchor Modelling have implemented parts of it, commercially, and they have published academic papers for those parts, but being fragments, they deliver only the value of those fragments, and nothing close to the whole, or the value of the whole.)

I have published commercial documents, and of course many databases that embody it. Yes, yes, with lots of acknowledgement and accolades. I do not market myself, I have not published the accolades or my bank statement. Yes, I have been asked to write a book, by hundreds of *relevant* people, and that is progressing. I evaluated the relevance of publishing an academic paper, but given that academia in general, and academic papers in particular, have descended into farce, contradiction, and pure excreta these days, I want nothing to do with it. There is a good possibility that one of my apprentices (research student, in your language) will publish an academic paper, but I won't promise on his behalf.

Please note also my comments to Jan H on the limitations of this media.

The best I can offer you *here* is this.
a. Read only Codd.
b. Follow this thread sincerely, with an openness to learning, I am happy to provide increments that are relevant to the stage being discussed. (There has to be an acknowledgement that I have something, that you do not have, and I am willing to transmit that to you; I am not going to inject seed pearls into clams.) As I have above.

As directions, I offer (note my previous Qualifications and Notes):

- Formal Normalisation (I repeat: [a] the pre-1970 scientific method; plus [b] the Codd method published in his RM; not the abnormal "normal forms" which provide *no method*) produces Structure.

- A good (valid; integral; uncorrupted; no circular references) Structure is Normalised. A bad one (invalid; dis-integrated; corrupt; circular references) is un-normalised.

- Structure is Logical. Yes, yes, Structure is also physical, but that is pedestrian, the Structure we are dealing with here is Logical. Very little valid info has been published about the Logical Structure of a Relational Database.

- There is a large obstacle, created by the hysterical false authorities, either out of incompetence, or to purposely subvert the science of database design), that reduces "logical" to what is in fact, (a) a mere rendition of *single* "physical" articles:
entity vs table
tuple vs row
attribute vs column
key vs index
etc

(Erwin [the correspondent, not the tool] will no doubt lecture us on the notion that a tuple is not a row, and the great relevance of the distinction. Prepare yourself for the onslaught.)

Which act (b) thereby limits "logical" to physical articles. Logical, by definition, is at least one level of abstraction removed from the Physical. Normal undamaged humans can contemplate and implement several layers of abstraction; several forms of Logical; each logical element may be a *collection* of physical elements. Subhumans "define" (with an enormous group hug called "citations") "logical" as a mere alternate label of the physical, thus limit their "logical" to the physical, and prevent genuine Logical [Structure, Order] to be recognised; analysed; modelled; implemented.

In their severely damaged notion of "logical", and with the heavy marketing and repetition, that idiotic meaning of "logical" has become firmly established in the industry.

Jettison it. Exorcise it. Remove the cancer. Allow the brain to function normally.

(I am not suggesting that we do a group hug and come up with a new definition of Logical; I and demanding that the idiotic definition be recognised and erased. That leaves us open to the published definition of Logical that normal humans, unaffected by the hysterics of the marketed insane, understand. If you use the same Oxford source for Logical, that is quite acceptable to me.)

Now we can progress with Logical in the true sense, and not in the established raving lunatic sense.

- The seeds (it is a seminal work) of Structure, Logical Structure of a Relational Database, are published in the RM. Any tertiary qualified IT person (excludes mathematicians and theorists) who applies the RM fully and faithfully, will produce a Logical Structure in the database.

- That Logical Structure is Normalised.

- That Logical Structure is probably (I assert it is; no one thus far has asserted otherwise; but it is not published outside the commercial arena) the most important requirement for articulation of the content (tables) in the database.

- Absence of Order, or absence of respect for the Order that exists in the physical universe, results in absent or damaged Structure. The articulation of such is severely limited.

- In my Notes & Qualifications, I noted Integration.

> - Ordering and structuring produces *Integration*, so that need not be stated, but add that term if necessary

Everything in a Database is integrated with everything else in the database. Otherwise it is dis-integrated, a data heap, a filing system. Structure is the integrated form, of Order.

- The corollary is, if one cannot contemplate the database in terms of the components as parts of an integrated whole, ie. if one can contemplate only dis-integrated fragments (JKL and JH), one is, by definition, pitifully incapable of producing an integrated database; or a formalised Structure; or maintaining Order at every stage.

That is another reason why the freaks who market themselves as "experts" on the RM have only exposed and articulated a small fraction of it, and that fraction consists of only isolated fragments.

Now if you are serious about this thread, about understanding the above, I strongly suggest that you use an example. The more real-world, the better. If you do not have one handy, at your request, I can drag one out.

> <more weirdness snipped>

More evidence of hypocrisy. Name-calling accepted without response.

> > Ordered:
> > - As per the RM.
> > - Look up his reference to Order, and to Ordinals
> Look up where? In the original paper, apart from the use of the business
> term "orders" in examples, the only mentions of order are with respect
> to domain or column ordering, and "order independence". The latter rules
> out some of the possible meanings of "ordered", and removes any possible
> relevance for "ordinal", a word that does not appear in the paper at all.

You seem to have some parts of it yes, which I will respond to first, in order to be complete, but you seem to be missing the major section re *Order* and *Ordered*, the context of my proposition re definition of a database.

> In the original paper, apart from the use of the business
> term "orders" in examples, the only mentions of order are with respect
> to domain or column ordering,

Yes, I have that. If you remove the "only", and I agree with that fragment.

> and "order independence".

Yes, I have that, section [1.2.1]

I agree that Ordering Independence is a requirement of the RM. But that too, is not the *Order* or *Ordered* that I am talking about.

> The latter rules
> out some of the possible meanings of "ordered",

It doesn't to me, but that is a trivial point.

> and removes any possible
> relevance for "ordinal", a word that does not appear in the paper at all.

There is a clear reference to it in the RM, without using the word *Ordinal* (if you know what it is and have used it). But I must apologise for my lack of clarity, his exposition of Ordinals is in another paper. I am happy to remove Ordinals from this thread. Restated:

> > Ordered:
> > - As per the RM.
- Look up his reference to Order

Oh dear. Another apology is called for. I did not mean, literally, search for the word *order*. We are dealing with meaning, not a mere occurrence of a certain word. Let me restate it again:

> > Ordered:
> > - As per the RM.

- Please read the entire section [1]; see if you come up with anything re the Order and Ordered, as per dictionary definition that [I think] we have agreed to. I will take it from there. There is a huge chunk missing.

> >> It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that,
> >> not outside that.
>
> If only we could agree on what "normal human logic" means.

Unlike the other definitions, this one might be a bit easier to agree to and close. I would accept a definition from an authoritative source: Oxford is fine, but we might need an encyclopædia for this one.

Alternately, I can offer this:
- over 21 years of age
- IQ between 90 and 110
- mind operates at reasonable capacity
- no physical or mental deformities
- no mental illnes
- has progressed mentally, past the egocentrism that is normal for toddlers, but abnormal for adults
- logical, scientific, as opposed to artsy type (this is a logical exercise)
- possesses integrity of mind (no contradictions in the one cranial space; recognises when something presented contradicts with the integrated mind, and rejects it)
- understands and accepts Order (the natural Order in the physical universe); ie. is not in rebellion with natural law
- accepts authority, can read, and does not re-invent wheels or authoritative definitions
- is not impaired, damaged, propagandised, programmed, "educated" by the forces of darkness (ok, all of us have sustained *some* damage from the war against us) to the point where they cannot converse with another normal human being.

A third alternative is this. Leave it for now; I can call the sub-human behaviour as and when it comes up; you can agree or disagree. Obsession with breaking integrated concepts up into fragments; choosing one or two fragments; and then discussing said fragments in isolation from the whole, is severely below normal human logic.

I offer those, because I do not think the absent agreement or definition needs to hold up the progress of the thread.

> > The deranged pseudo-scientists create "definitions" that are fragmented,
> > isolated, located in outer space. They are irrelevant to undamaged
> > humans, to the real world.
> An ad hominem attack on unnamed persons does not constitute either an
> answer or an argument.

I didn't suggest that such attacks (whether they are ad hominem or not) on those freaks, was an answer or an argument. No idea why you think it is. I have named them severally, I just do not name them every single time.

Cheers
Derek

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Friday, 28 February 2014 06:07:41 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> Unless we agree on one, and then it is *our* private definition,

I suppose you call that "logic".

Ok, so you can't participate in the thread. You can only participate in the opinions about definitions.

> and then we can have a meaningful and fruitful discussion about it.

Fruit require seeds, and you have shown me none. All you have done is promise to argue about the fruit; that you can redefine stone as fruit.

Oh yeah, and address tiny fragments of my post in isolation from the whole, from the thread.

> I'm afraid that for the moment I have to leave your other points for
> what they are because I have to go and prepare a few lectures on, you
> know, MVCC and optimistic concurrency management. But you already knew
> that, didn't you? :-)

You need to tell us about that ?

Ok, God help your students. I will pray for them.

Cheers
Derek

[Erwin...@ikan.be]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:38:05 PM UTC+1, Derek Asirvadem wrote:

I am the authority, ... , exclusively, since 1987.



Quite some time before that, someone else wrote :

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid

[Erwin...@ikan.be]

I forgot

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge".

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Friday, 28 February 2014 18:05:15 UTC+11, Erwin...@ikan.be wrote:

> MVCC and optimistic concurrency management is only for retards who don't know how to do transactions properly. If you just follow Derek standards, you won't ever need any of that crap, and you'll certainly never bring the system down on its knees.

I see you are up to your old tricks again. History has not changed in centuries. All great lies and frauds have a bit of truth attached to them.

Normally, I would ignore that sort of post, but the misrepresentation is so gross, the lies twisted with the truth so horrible, for the benefit of the readership, I must disentangle it.

The context is, normal humans, can read, have read, and have been using ACID Transactions since the 1960's, without any drama whatsoever. High Concurrency does not need to be coded, because it is the purposeful result of understanding same and implementing it. Since it is a design methodology, not an aspect of the platform, High Concurrency can be obtained on any platform, both the genuine SQLs, and the freeware that is fraudulently proposed as SQLs.

Now for the spaghetti:

> MVCC [...] is only for retards who don't know how to [write] transactions properly.

True.

Ones who are scared of them. Ones who do not understand ACID, and therefore drop acid. Then the retards have to create a substitute. Predictably, that substitute, produced by retards who don't understand transactions (don't forget the orgy of citations), the likes of Snotgrass the wesearch bellow at MicroShifty Humaniversity, is an abortion:

MVCC

> bring[s] the system down on its knees.

Contrary to the retarded "science" that "proved" it wouldn't.

Proving, yet again, the "science" and the purveyors, to be retarded.

Proving, yet again, that the citations are merely an orgy that only the retarded gyrate in. They are of no value whatsoever. Ok, they have the same value as personal lubricant.

Predictably, as retards, they cannot observe the physical universe accurately or completely, so they somehow miss the system on its knees. Determining the actual cause of it is totally beyond them.

Predictably, they obsess about their "creation" (abortion to the humans), and they dream up demented impoofments ...

> ... optimistic concurrency management ...

They give more "lectures" and "conferences", and write more "scientific" thrillers and "papers". More citations and self-stroking and group hugs. They haven't read Krüger and Dunning, or standards documents.

Predictably, they will produce MVCC squared. We don't have to wait five years for the "proof" to assault the universe.

The retards cannot understand [I]solation, so they ("hell, I can invent anything from scratch") code it, in a darling attempt to implement it, to enforce their fantasies on the real physical world, that has thus far avoided suffering same.

> If you just follow [...] [OLTP] standards, you won't ever need any of that crap, and you'll certainly never bring the system down on its knees.

True. Can't argue with that.

But there is a pre-requisite. You must understand ACID Transactions. That includes the [I] for Isolation. In the database sense, not the mental illness sense. (More, later.)

Standards are published by authorities, and are available free. Therefore it (the standards and the method to avoid the systems on its knees) is available freely, to anyone with two fingers and a bit of tissue between them, who can type "google ...", and read the results returned.

Retards are fearful of authorities, they are their own authority ("hell, I can invent anything from scratch"). In retards, that issue is not very grey.

> ... Derek['s] [OLTP] standards ...

True, I have invented a few things, but I can't take credit for something that I did not write. The standards existed before I ever touched a computer, before I ever wrote anything of value in the industry. I first saw them in 1976, used with effect, and misused, with negative effect, on IBM Mainframes. The CICS TCP boys deserve all the credit.

From 1981 to 1987, I worked for a great DBMS platform supplier, Cincom (fifth largest then, unheard of now). I was on the minicomputer DBMS team, which was early days, but 100% online vs the mainframes, which were 100% batch with an online front end.

Ok, I did translate the CICS OLTP Standards for implementation in fully online systems. Of course, I wrote part of the DBMS code, I was fully aware of contention issues, both in the DBMS, and in the user code, so I was suited to do that.

Ok, I did write some education for the consultants to provide to our customers, such that they never wrote a deadlock; never experienced contention problems; always enjoyed high concurrency, etc. Of course that included a full review of ACID Transactions, yet another Standard, that I did not write.

As the industry evolved and I moved on from high-end DBMS to high-end RDBMS platforms, Sybase and DB2 in particular, I rendered the OLTP Standard and the education for those platforms. The problem space; the contention; the resolution; has not changed in fifty years. The science; the standards; ACID Transactions have not changed. The success and the guarantees can be repeated on any platform.

> > If you just follow [...] [OLTP] standards, you won't ever need any of that crap, and you'll certainly never bring the system down on its knees.

> True. Can't argue with that.

> But there is a pre-requisite. You must understand ACID Transactions. That includes the [I] for Isolation.

If you do not, that can be obtained from any company that supplies formal education on the subject. Sure, I am one of them.

If you do not have the capacity to understand ACID Transactions, you are beyond help. I try to ensure that the customer does not contaminate any education that they ask me to supply, but ultimately it is their retard, their problem.

Oh, wait. The retards. Those who cannot read anything except papers that they orgiastically cite, they are going to redefine the problem space, from scratch; redefine transactions; redefine the solution. And implement it. In the platform.

Um, the problem is not in the platform. Therefore no amount of coding in the platform is going to resolve the problem. The platform attempting to do so, will bring the host system to its knees. Predictable.

Idiots.

Please stop shifting about.

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Saturday, 1 March 2014 00:10:37 UTC+11, Erwin...@ikan.be wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:38:05 PM UTC+1, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>

> > > Your authority for "structured" = "normalised"?
>

> > Codd was, but he is no longer with us ...

>
> > Er, I am the authority, as a faithful disciple of Codd, following the theory since 1976 and theory-applied-as-practice, exclusively, since 1987.

Which, you in your uncontrollable convulsions, have twisted, perverted and mangled into:

> > I am the authority, ... , exclusively, since 1987.

There you go with you disgusting lying as usual. I see that you have the straw man production that pathetic creatures engage in, elevated to fine art. It remains a degenerate act.

Do not break my statements up. It will cause gas in your system.

Then there is the abject fear of genuine authorities. That causes heartburn. That will aggravate your condition. Flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatulence. Predictable.

Then there are the heart palpitations, the genetic condition resulting from the centuries. Fear of authority will trigger that.

Look, you are on your knees already. Sure, you might be used to your toilet accidents, but I don't want to be around when it happens.

> Quite some time before that, someone else wrote :
> One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid

Ah, so you didn't read the links I provided.

> ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

Ok, ok, ok. I accept, facing an authority scares the churning crap you. Relax. Take a few long, deep breaths. You can do it. This will pass. Grab the inhaler. Double up on the meds. I didn't intend to scare you. Don't worry, I am not like the authority figures in your childhood. I won't take advantage of you when you are on your knees like that.

Nothing can be done about the fragmented mind, the genetic conditions, the tissue degeneration, you will have to learn to live with that, but there is no need to be afraid of authorities.

Unless you have committed crimes.

[Eric]

On 2014-02-28, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped (or excluded) - an enormous amount of garbage about the
brilliance of Derek and the insanity of others>

You are obviously not interested in a rational discussion, and there is
no way that what you have written can be answered as a unit. I shall
content myself with responding to a few things that caught my eye on the
way through.

>> A non-answer, since what I was asking for is the definitions of the
>> words you used.
>
> Well, you need to be more precise in your English. I was answering your
> post, not reading your mind.

You weren't supposed to read my mind, just tell me what you meant. You
haven't done that.

>> You do not give your reasons, but ignore or disparage theirs.
>
> Er, they did *not* give reasons, they gave lunacy.

Point proven, since you seem to define lunacy as anything you don't
agree with.

> Er, I am the authority, as a faithful disciple of Codd, following the
> theory since 1976 and theory-applied-as-practice, exclusively, since 1987.

We have only your word that you are a faithful disciple. Actually I
wouldn't boast about it if I were you, it gives the impression of
someone with blind unquestioning faith in a valuable but probably
imperfect proposition.

> ... Anchor Modelling have implemented parts of it ...

Baiting Vladimir are we? He posts here to record his work that he claims
they have plagiarised. For all I know, he may be right.

> a. Read only Codd.

After all, no one else could possibly have added any value (except you of
course).

> b. Follow this thread sincerely

More religious overtones. Also acting as if you own the thread, which
no one does.

> entity vs table
> tuple vs row
> attribute vs column
> key vs index

Are you claiming that there is no worthwhile distinction between the two
terms in each pair? It sounds like it. Wrong on all counts.

>> <more weirdness snipped>
>
> More evidence of hypocrisy. Name-calling accepted without response.

I think that something you wrote is weird. That pales in comparison with
the number of people you call insane because of what they wrote.

>> Look up where? In the original paper ...

>
> You seem to have some parts of it yes,

I have all of it.

> ... but you seem to be missing the major section re *Order* and *Ordered*

So quote me a piece of that section, so that I can find it and understand
what you are talking about.

>>> It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that,
>>> not outside that.
>>
>> If only we could agree on what "normal human logic" means.

I shan't retain your attempt to (apparently) define a "normal human".
Most of it is not objective, and most of the bits that are apparently
objective are in fact making unreasonable distinctions.

> I offer those, because I do not think the absent agreement or definition
> needs to hold up the progress of the thread.

Trying to own the thread again? So arrogant.

>> An ad hominem attack on unnamed persons does not constitute either an
>> answer or an argument.
>
> I didn't suggest that such attacks (whether they are ad hominem or not) on
> those freaks, was an answer or an argument. No idea why you think it is.

Clutching at straws, because nothing else you wrote was either?

[Eric]

On 2014-02-28, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually I think, and thought before I saw this post, God help your
clients.

I suspect you present a somewhat different face to them from the one you
present here, but even so ... .

I wonder if I know any of them.

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Saturday, 1 March 2014 09:13:28 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> > On 2014-02-28, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are obviously not interested in a rational discussion,

Thus far, you cannot read, let alone understand the RM, so *discussion* is not possible.

I have already explained: at this point it is educational, a one way street; *discussion*, is a two-way street; discussion requires a common understanding, and there is a huge gap on your side. Which is why it can only be *educational* at this point. If and when we reach that required common understanding, then and only then, can we entertain the possibility of discussion.

> and there is
> no way that what you have written can be answered as a unit.

So answer it in parts. You seem to be really good at fragmenting things when you want to prove something that is not there; try your hand at fragmenting for something that is there, then respond to it.

If you have a short attention span, read my posts one section at a time. Absorb it; deal with it; close it, before you go to the next section. I can't apologise for answering all issues, or my condensed format. Dr E F Codd does the same. My customers love it.

Or else read and understand the whole of my post, and respond only to the parts that you do not understand, or wish to progress. But I suspect that may be a bit too normal for you.

> I shall
> content myself with responding to a few things that caught my eye on the
> way through.

Ok. So the evidence is, you can't follow the thread and progress it. But I am the one who is irrational. That is "logic".

> You weren't supposed to read my mind, just tell me what you meant. You
> haven't done that.

Er, if you followed the thread, you might have picked up, that:
-- it doesn't matter what *I* think
-- because you want a definition for a database, and Dr E F Codd wrote the RM, which is the standard
-- that the *Ordered, Structured, Normalised* that matters ,is what *Codd wrote*.

Let's make it really easy for you: subtract the extensions that *I* wrote, so that you don't have to deal with my brilliance. Just see if you can understand and apply *Codd's Brilliance*.

It is not for me to provide an exposition on Codd's work in this thread, and the medium isprevents that anyway. But I have condescended to answer your questions, and assist by explaining anything in the RM that you do not understand. However, you have to be able to read.

Since you do not understand:
> > A database is an ordered, structured collection of data
it is for you read, understand, and apply, the *Ordered, Structured, Normalised* as defined in Codd's the Relational Model. And sure, for the gaps in your understanding, I was happy to fill those in.

It is fair enough that the insane, since they cannot comprehend Codd, rush to redefine *database, Order, Structure* in their own private terms, so that they can claim understanding and provide "maffematical definitions" of it. It appears that you at least one step more capable than them (which is why I bother), but it is not proved that your normal human capabilities are intact (ability to read & understand the RM).

For a while there, it appeared that you were more capable than that, you accepted two public definitions, and we were close to agreeing on a third.

But when the need came for understanding Codd's definitions and prescriptions, on top of the foundation Oxford definitions, you have shown that you understand zero. You can't find anything in the RM that applies to *Ordered, Structured, Normalised*. But somehow, according to your "logic", it is I who is not explaining what I meant, and it is I who is irrational.

Even after I gave you specific assistance and direction, trying to close just one of the three items:

> > Please read the entire section [1]; see if you come up with anything re the Order and Ordered, as per dictionary definition that [I think] we have agreed to. I will take it from there. There is a huge chunk missing.

... you have come up with zero.

Hence, you want me to explain the RM to you. I have already stated, this media is not appropriate for delivering education. I can only answer the questions that you ask. Now it is proved, given the evidence of your eyes and mind, education is impossible. The ground is not capable of absorption.

Perhaps the problem is with the eyes. If not, then it points to a limitations of mind. Blaming others your inability to comprehend is a common trait.

> We have only your word that you are a faithful disciple [of Codd]. Actually I

> wouldn't boast about it if I were you, it gives the impression of
> someone with blind unquestioning faith in a valuable but probably
> imperfect proposition.

Amazing. You cannot find *Ordered, Structured, Normalised* in the RM, but you have drawn conclusions about it. Absolutely amazing.

And conclusions from those who provide categorical evidence that they have no understanding whatsoever re the subject matter, are somehow "valid".

I suppose you have large crystal balls to compensate for the damaged eyes.

That proves further that education is impossible. The ground is barren.

> > ... Anchor Modelling have implemented parts of it ...
> Baiting Vladimir are we? He posts here to record his work that he claims
> they have plagiarised. For all I know, he may be right.

If you had honestly read that thread, you would have seen that I supported him, but disagreed with the plagiarism charge. But then there is the eye problem.

You could google for Anchor Modelling. But then there is the absorption problem.

> More religious overtones. Also acting as if you own the thread, which
> no one does.

Agreed. No need to be so fearful. You are asking me questions, about subjects that you do not understand; I am providing answers and references. For that interaction, I am the authority, you are the seeker. If you can't handle that, you can't obtain what you declare you are seeking.

> > entity vs table
> > tuple vs row
> > attribute vs column
> > key vs index
> Are you claiming that there is no worthwhile distinction between the two
> terms in each pair? It sounds like it.

Only to the blind and the mentally crippled. I said, and please read it as the continuous unit that I presented:

----

- There is a large obstacle, created by the hysterical false authorities, either out of incompetence, or to purposely subvert the science of database design), that reduces "logical" to what is in fact,

-- (a) a mere rendition of *single* "physical" articles:

entity vs table
tuple vs row
attribute vs column
key vs index

etc

Which act:
-- (b) thereby limits "logical" to physical articles.

Logical, by definition, is at least one level of abstraction removed from the Physical. Normal undamaged humans can contemplate and implement several layers of abstraction; several forms of Logical; each logical element may be a *collection* of physical elements. Subhumans "define" (with an enormous group hug called "citations") "logical" as a mere alternate label of the physical, thus limit their "logical" to the physical, and prevent genuine Logical [Structure, Order] to be recognised; analysed; modelled; implemented.

----

Note, I did not "claim that there is no worthwhile distinction between the two terms in each pair", or any such thing. I specifically stated several other things. You have fabricated a conclusion of your own accord, from something I did not state. Ok, it is a figment of your imagination. I have no idea why you attribute to me, you can take full credit for it.

But since you are presenting it to me, Ok, I agree, you are right, your fabricated figment is wrong.

For readers without vision or mind problems, who are following the substance of the thread, Yes there is a distinction. The distinction is trivial: it is merely the logical *view* vs the physical *view*, of the one model. But as per my original post, that is not the problem. The problem is that
-- those with crippled minds have, by their mountain of marketed garbage, managed to establish that trivial difference as *the* difference between logical and physical, the *definition* of logical
-- That presents an obstacle to *genuine* recognition of the Logical
-- And thus analysis; modelling; improvement of the actual Logical is prevented.

Therefore, in order to understand the RM, the Logical Structures therein, and to model them, we have to erase that pithy definition of Logical, and open up to its normal meaning, it RM meaning. Not for the blind.

> Wrong on all counts.

That is one count. You can't even count to one ???

Agreed that it was wrong.

But it is your figment, not mine, so it is you who is wrong. That is zero counts on my side; one count on your side. On one item. I won't count the other items for you, but please don't bother counting them: with your evidenced eye problem and inability to count single digits, that count would not be a count that you can count on.

> > You seem to have some parts of it yes,
> I have all of it.

But you cannot find any definitions or prescriptions re *Ordered, Structured, Normalised* in section [1. Relational Model and Normal Form].

Not in [1.3 A Relational View of Data], the very section that defines it, after [1.2 Data Dependencies in Present Systems], the section identifying the problems that it solves.

Not in [1.4 Normal Form]. Hint: that means Normal Form. Looking back at 1970, from 1984 onwards, it is in fact:
---------------------------
Relational Normal Form.
---------------------------

Therefore, no, you might well have the piece of paper, but evidently, thus far, you do not "have" or possess, or hold any knowledge of its content whatsoever. And yes, you evidently have firm conclusions about what you know nothing about. But somehow it is I who is irrational.

I will give you one last chance.

Summarised the context at the present state of progress:

1. You state that you want to understand *Ordered, Structured, Normalised*
2. You had no clue what that meant.
3. We agreed to standard public definitions (Big Tick, you are less crippled that those who compulsively redefine terms).
4. We agreed that Codd's RM was the definitive article relating to Relational Databases.
5. We took one term *Ordered*
6. We understood that there are two levels to the terms:
6.a. normal human understanding
-- It appears you accept the Oxford definitions that apply

6.b. Having achieved [6.a], upon which, and within which, Codd's definitions are to be taken.
-- you allege that you have read the RM, but you have not found re *Order or Ordered* as [per [6.a]
-- but thousands of others have
-- so the failure is on your side, to try and obtain the relevance of the RM, thus far just one definition *Order* of the three *Ordered, Structured, Normalised*.
--------
Therefore the next step for you, to overcome your stalled position, in achieving what you said you want to achieve, is to read the RM very slowly, and to stop and ask a question, the moment to you do understand something.
--------

6.c. I supplied explanatory notes
-- you dismiss them ("<snipped>") without understanding them "weirdness"
-- maybe I presented those notes a bit too early for you. In which case, fine, dismiss them; proceed with the identified task; ask questions and I will answer
-- but for capable humans, the idea is to observe those notes as assistance to understanding the very thing (the RM) that you do not understand
-- you are going to have to stretch a little, and at least contemplate (if not accept) that there are things beyond your understanding; if and when you venture into those areas, which are by definition, new to you, it may feel "weird". You will not die. Other people do it all the time.
--------
So either dismiss my notes, read the RM, and ask questions, or if you can operate at the required level, observe my notes whilst reading the RM, slowly.
--------

6.d. You may be prevented from understanding those things, by the mountain of garbage written by the "famous aufers" and "muffemaffishuns" who purport to understand the RM, and who provide expositions about it.
-- Remove that garbage from your mind. I have already explained: it is garbage; and it prevents genuine understanding of the RM
-- Do not compare the RM which you are starting to read for yourself against the garbage, it will prevent your understanding
-- I am not supplying "muffemaffishuns deffinishuns"; I have already stated, the RM is easy to understand in terms of (a) simple English plus (b) established computer science terms. We are proceeding with that, hence the sequence I am attempting to lead you through.
-- Note that those aufers have schizophrenic, dis-integrated minds; that Codd has an integrated mind; that the RM is integrated, not dis-integrated; therefore the dis-integrated cannot explain the integrated
-- I can, but you find it "weird".

6.e. It must be noted that even though you have not read or understood the paper, let alone read or understood the referenced terms in it, you have firm conclusions about it:

> [The RM is] a valuable but probably
> imperfect proposition.

-- That (thinking you know something that you evidently, clearly, have not read and understood) will present an obstacle to genuine understanding.
-- The declaration is pure drivel.
-- As required for any good student, you will have to give up your notions; accept that you are learning; accept that you do not understand the subject that you are learning; keep an open mind; and sincerely try to learn. If you can't do that, do not waste my time or yours.

7. Explanatory Note re Referenced Terms
---------------------------------------------

You may dismiss this as "weird", but it needs to be said, given the pulp fiction that is written, cited, and accepted as "scientific papers" these days.

Now, please note, unlike the demands of some people on this forum, to compulsively redefine every little term from scratch, in 1970, when education had not been destroyed, and brains were not scrambled, people understood that when one made a reference to a technical term in a technical paper, in meant that:
a. The term was an established technical term
b. The author relied on the established (public) definition (it eliminated idiotic discussion about meanings and definitions; as I have been trying to do; the 90% of white noise on this thread)
c. The reader was supposed to understand the technical term (and if not: suspend reading this paper; read the relevant paper to obtain that understanding; return to this paper when that is achieved. And not before.)

That means, since it is a 1970's paper for the capable of mind, who lived in one universe,(not a 2010's paper with private definitions for the scrambled of mind, each with private definitions and a private little "universe"), you have to understand those referenced technical terms first. Such as:

7.a. the Hierarchical Model

7.b. Normalisation; Normalised; Normalised Set, as it existed in 1970 when Codd wrote his paper

7.c. Order, Ordered

Since my explanations-before-reading are "weird" to you, I will refrain from providing them, I will leave it for you to as a question after reading. Please be specific.

---
8.
---

> > ... but you seem to be missing the major section re *Order* and *Ordered*
> So quote me a piece of that section, so that I can find it and understand
> what you are talking about.

You cannot follow my ordinary direction:

> > Please read the entire section [1]; see if you come up with anything re the Order and Ordered, as per dictionary definition that [I think] we have agreed to. I will take it from there. There is a huge chunk missing.

I have explained that *Order, Ordered*, is tightly bound to *Structured and Normalised*. Normalised as in the RM, which includes Normalised as in the HM. But you are in denial about that, so you call my explanation names, obviously because you do not understand it, and dismiss it.

But if you want to genuinely understand the RM, the "what I am talking about", as you say you do, you cannot at the same time dismiss it. It is a gross contradiction. In your single (hopefully you have just one) cranium. You are guaranteed to fail.

So if you want to stop failing at what you state you want to do "so that I can find it and understand what you are talking about", you will need to:
a. stop the behaviours that cause the failure (dismissal of my explanation you do not understand)
-- and try to understand them (or ask me questions)

b. stop the behaviours that cause the failure (pretence of understanding the RM)
-- read and understand the RM (or ask me questions)
-- read up on the referenced technical terms (or ask me questions)

---- Hint. Do not use the Search facility, and serach for "order". That will result in a robot finding a word. The task at hand is for you to understand [6.a]; holding that understanding in your mind, read the RM, looking for the occurrences of the meaning of *Order, Ordered* (not the word) in the RM.
---- We can follow it in increments of one paragraph, or one sentence, if we have to.

---
9.
---

> > >> It is normal human logic, and whatever we do in IT should be within that,
> > >> not outside that.
> > >
> > > If only we could agree on what "normal human logic" means.
> I shan't retain your attempt to (apparently) define a "normal human".
> Most of it is not objective, and most of the bits that are apparently
> objective are in fact making unreasonable distinctions.

I wasn't defining a "normal human", fool, I was defining a person capable of "normal human logic", as you requested. There is no point in evaluating what I offered against one measure, against some other measure that was not mentioned. But it is standard fare for the fragmented mind. Read again. It is in the line above new term you introduce.

Imbecile: Shopkeeper, I want six apples.
Shopkeeper: Here you go, sir. Fresh picked, yesterday.
Imbecile: But these are not oranges.

Ok, fine. It was only an offer. Feel free to supply yours. And please comply with your own requirements re objectivity.

----
10.
----

> > > An ad hominem attack on unnamed persons does not constitute either an
> > > answer or an argument.
> >
> > I didn't suggest that such attacks (whether they are ad hominem or not) on
> > those freaks, was an answer or an argument. No idea why you think it is.
>
> Clutching at straws, because nothing else you wrote was either?

Let's get this straight. I attack an imbecile because they are pretending knowledge. You somehow classify that as an answer to a question, one that was not identified. I correct you: I state the attack-on-the-freak and the answer-to-your-question are two separate things. If you read the post they are in two separate paragraphs. I state that the attack is not an answer. You classify that as "Clutching at straws". Must be good drugs.

----
11.
----
> [The RM is] a valuable but probably
> imperfect proposition.

Schizophrenics, phychotics, psychopaths, anti-social criminals, have a huge fear of authorities. Since they fail completely to function in the real world, they redefine words, terms, so that in their private little minds, they appear to function; so that the authority is somehow the failure; and their fragile concoction about a subject that themselves provde evidence that they have no knowledge about, is somehow The Right One.

CDT used to be for undamaged humans.

----
12.
----

> > I offer those, because I do not think the absent agreement or definition
> > needs to hold up the progress of the thread.
>
> Trying to own the thread again? So arrogant.

I am not trying any such thing. If you read the thread (as opposed to forming opinions about it, from your perspective), you might notice that I am answering questions, issues raised, and they are *your* questions. "Trying to own the thread" is your opinion, you perspective, you deal with it. It is not my problem, I can't do anything about it, I can't "disown" the thread, because I don't own it.

I suppose you have not noticed the arrogance of those who make conclusions about what they clearly do not understand. Oh wait, you have a private definition for the word!

----
13.
----

> Actually I think, and thought before I saw this post, God help your
> clients.

Stop lying. You have no belief in God, you do not pray. Only fully capable humans with Ordered minds have that.

> I wonder if I know any of them.

None of my customers live on your paper route, chipmunk.

The main point here is this. Stop worrying about what you personally, or I personally, think. Keep it to your miserable self. Or flog it on the internet and deal with the consequences. If you can't swallow it, do not dish it out.
http://dilbert.com/strips/2014-03-02/

Keep the subjective to a minimum. I couldn't care less what imbeciles on CDT think of me, I get more than enough accolades from people who matter. Your attacks (whether you admit them to be ad hominem or not), besides being subjective drivel from one who has proved they cannot read and understand either the RM, or technical notes about it, are impotent.

You seem to appreciate objectivity. I hope you are using the public definition. This is a technical forum (at least it used to be, in the good old days, before the insane flooded it with their insane discussions about discussion without discussing anything). So we are supposed to be dealing with objective facts. Databases. The Relational Model. Objective facts about those subjects, not the fantasies of the freaks who write them.

Try to maintain focus. If and when you take the next incremental step, I will supply the next increment.

Cheers
Derek

[Dieter Nöth]

Derek Asirvadem wrote:

> You have no belief in God, you do not pray. Only fully capable humans with Ordered minds have that.

I'm atheist and reading your answers (at least trying to) i'm really
glad and proud i am.
Maybe your perfectly ordered and normalized mind should better stop
writing and keep on praying all day long, <insert your preferred
supernatural being here> may help you.

Dieter

[Derek Asirvadem]

On Monday, 3 March 2014 20:22:54 UTC+11, Dieter Nöth wrote:
>
> I'm atheist and reading your answers (at least trying to) i'm really
> glad and proud i am.
>
> Maybe your perfectly ordered and normalized mind should better stop
> writing and keep on praying all day long, <insert your preferred
> supernatural being here> may help you.
>
> Dieter

Typical atheist.

No God. But they have very firm ideas about what God is, and how the faithful *should* behave. Hilarious.

Oh, and wait, they think the-God-that-they-don't-believe-in will help me; us; my customers; global warming; the war against humanity. And they want us to pray..

I think the mind-scramblers call that schizophrenia.

Oh wait, they redefine the term, they are not schizophrenic, they are "open-minded". And everyone should worship their "open" "minds".

Oh, and I, with my Ordered, Structured, Normalised mind, should leave that all behind; I should take heed of their opinions about what they do-not-know. Right. They have good drugs for that.

> reading your answers (at least trying to)

Skip the boring bits, responding to people here these days (unlike the old days) is tedious and voluminous, repeated responses to the same repeated issue. The opposite of Normalised. There has been very little progress. If you request, I will post a summary or re-cap.

Just ask a question. I don't know what you are having difficulty with.

Cheers
Derek

[Dieter Nöth]

Derek Asirvadem wrote:

>> I'm atheist and reading your answers (at least trying to) i'm really
>> glad and proud i am.
>>
>> Maybe your perfectly ordered and normalized mind should better stop
>> writing and keep on praying all day long, <insert your preferred
>> supernatural being here> may help you.
>>
>> Dieter
>
> Typical atheist.
>
> No God. But they have very firm ideas about what God is, and how the faithful *should* behave. Hilarious.

Now it's my turn to ask, how you deduce my ideas about god. For me god
(or whatever) is not dead, he doesn't smell funny, too, it simply
doesn't exist.

> Oh, and wait, they think the-God-that-they-don't-believe-in will help me; us; my customers; global warming; the war against humanity. And they want us to pray..

No this was my polite way to tell what i think about your state of mind.
When you pray you don't post :-)

EOT

Dieter

[Eric]

On 2014-03-03, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 1 March 2014 09:13:28 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-28, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are obviously not interested in a rational discussion,
>
> Thus far, you cannot read, let alone understand the RM, so *discussion*
> is not possible.
>
> I have already explained: at this point it is educational, a one way
> street; *discussion*, is a two-way street; discussion requires a common
> understanding, and there is a huge gap on your side.

Your arrogance is beyond belief. I asked a question in this newsgroup,
not because I lacked an answer, but because I wanted to see what
variation of answers the people here came up with. You provided an
answer, I asked a question about it, and you have given me no answer,
merely an ever-increasing pile of nonsense as I tried to ask clarifying
questions. I did not want or need your form of "education", merely to
understand what you meant. At this point I do not believe that you
understand what you mean. Or perhaps you merely like winding people up.

It is not even amusing any more!

> -- because you want a definition for a database, and Dr E F Codd wrote the
> RM, which is the standard

This from someone that said yes, databases did exist before Codd.

> Hence, you want me to explain the RM to you.

An assumption you made up out of nothing.

> I will give you one last chance.

I am pleased if it is truly the last, as then I will be saved the
trouble of refusing it again.

>> Actually I think, and thought before I saw this post, God help your
>> clients.
>
> Stop lying. You have no belief in God, you do not pray. Only fully
> capable humans with Ordered minds have that.

Thankfully, someone else has dealt with this one.

>> I wonder if I know any of them.
>
> None of my customers live on your paper route, chipmunk.

Since you appear to be based in a city where I spent some years living
and working, and working in IT, the probability that I might know some
is noticeably above zero.

> Try to maintain focus. If and when you take the next incremental step,
> I will supply the next increment.

You will supply nothing. You have nothing of use to supply.

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 08:27:39 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
> > On 2014-03-03, Derek Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> <mental gyrations snipped>

>
> I asked a question in this newsgroup,
> not because I lacked an answer, but because I wanted to see what
> variation of answers the people here came up with.

Accepted. You did not state your purpose at the outset, but accepted now.

> You provided an answer,

Agreed thus far. The answer was "Ordered, Structured, Normalised"

> I asked a question about it,

Agreed thus far. The answer was:
1. I don't have private definitions
2. The terms as defined in:
2.a. Normal human logic (and I believe you have accepted the definitions from Oxford, which you referenced)
2.b. Re databases, The Relational Model, which is the standard since 1984.

> and you have given me no answer,

Stop lying.

The answer was, and I will repeat it for you, "Ordered, Structured, Normalised, as per the Relational Model"

> <mental waffle snipped>

The fact is, as evidenced, you cannot (a) read the RM, and (b) understand it, you cannot find anything regarding "Ordered, Structured, Normalised" (the meaning, not the occurrence of the word).

-- Aside --
True, I did offer to educate you about it. But that is because you could not read or understand the RM, and because there is a mountain of garbage written, allegedly about the RM, which has nothing to do with the RM. Those authors too, cannot read or understand the RM.

Ok, fine, I retract my offer to educate you.

That means you are stuck at, a non-starter at, [2.b]

Even when I did provide answers, you did not recognise them, because they reference the RM, which by the consistent volume of evidence you have provided in this thread, you do not understand.
-- End Aside --

So the fact is, you cannot understand the answers to your question (whatever the purpose of it was), because you cannot read or understand standard texts on the subject of your own question. Nothing to do with me.

No amount of twisting that into "you are not answering my question" is going to change the simple evidenced facts. The problem is yours, and yours alone.

> > -- because you want a definition for a database, and Dr E F Codd wrote the
> > RM, which is the standard
>
> This from someone that said yes, databases did exist before Codd.

???

You didn't know that databases (pre-relational, of course, with full OLTP and ACID Transactions) existed "before Codd". We had Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation before Codd, yes. We had standards for those, yes. Evidently you don't read, so try the wiki entries for simpletons, for:
-- Hierarchical database (IBM's IMS) or Hierarchical Model
-- Network Database (Cincom's TOTAL) or Network Model
-- Navigational database (pithy term, invented after the fact of Relational, to explain some of the limitations of what non-relational was)

???

Or maybe you do not understand chronology, history.

Codd wrote his paper in 1970, when he worked for IBM, and the basis in their IMS (which you would know, if you could read the RM). Since it was seminal, and it changed the way we viewed database and data, it took a while for the vendors to re-implement their long-standing, well-estabished database platforms as true Relational platforms. The first one came out in 1984.

Therefore *after* Codd (1970 in theoretical terms; 1984 in implementation terms), we have *Relational* Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation.

That means, *subsequent* to the pre-relational standards for *Relational* Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation, that existed at 1970, we had standards for *Relational* Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation. Fully implemented by 1984.

We put men on the Moon in 1969. Using minicomputers and pre-relational databases. You seem to have intimate knowledge of outer space, you should have heard of the Apollo missions. We had landing craft and everything. We watched it, live, on television. At least those of us who were more than five years old in 1969.

> You will supply nothing. You have nothing of use to supply.

That is correct, as it applies to you. I have nothing to supply to one who cannot read or understand the technical terms and concepts provided in the RM, *and* who is unwilling to learn it.

For anyone else (who doesn't understand the RM but who is willing to learn it), I have something that is beyond your ken. There is zero value in your speculations about subject matter that, by your evidence, you know nothing about. It is like a pigmy speculating about air travel, you are at the point where you are afraid of the bus.

Since you are clueless about Relational, all your "databases" are, by definition, non-Relational, navigational data heaps. You have none of the integrity, power and speed of Relational databases (the *Order; Structure; Normalisation* that you do not understand). But you seem to be quite happy with that, scared witless about any knowledge that threatens the "validity" of your data heaps.

Stick the paper route.

----

A restated answer to the initial question is in order.

> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 04:51:50 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

Good question. Since some time has passed since 1970, when the seminal work of Dr E F Codd changed the database landscape permanently, one *should* ask:

What is your short, accurate definition of the term Relational Database ?

Since, as evidenced by you, you cannot read or understand the RM, the answer to *that* question is beyond you.

That is further proved by your initial question, which does not refer to "relational" in any way, therefore I shall withdraw from imposing any post-1970 database technology requirements on you, and return to *your* initial question. Please accept my apologies for the imposition. I will now try and answer within the scope of your understanding:

> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 04:51:50 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> No, seriously, what is your short, accurate definition of the word
> "database" (in, but not necessarily restricted to, a computer context)?

An ordered, structured collection of data.

Since, as per your evidence, your mind is permanently fixed in the pre-1970, pre-relational age, and some of us in the IT industry have progressed during the subsequent forty four years, it is best if you refrain from trying to understand the "computer context", and stick to the filing cabinets.

Cheers
Derek

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 13:01:19 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:

Correction of a typographical error:

That means, *subsequent* to the pre-relational standards for _pre-relational_ Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation, that existed at 1970, we had standards for *Relational* Databases; Order; Structure; Normalisation.
Fully implemented by 1984.

Further:

IBM had Sequel, which was a proprietary brand name for SQL (you do know what that stands for, don't you). SQL as a *definition* of a Data Sublanguage, as an implementation of *the* Data Sublanguage defined in the RM, was then extracted from IBM, and it became a Standard.

Modelling methods for Relational databases were invented. Chen produced the ER Model, from which Brown; Ramey; and Coleman, produced Relational Modelling (IDEF1X), notably with Codd's input, in the 19080's, which became a standard in 1993. LogicWorks produced a fully Relational modelling tool incorporating IDEF1X, ERwin (not the correspondent) in 1987, it is now sold by CA.

So the fact is, since 1984 (I have been using them since 1985), we have completely Relational platforms; modelling tools; and standards for each aspect. Of course, all that is relevant to, only possible for, those who can read and understand the RM.

Many people don't. They are stuck in the pre-1970, pre-relational age, implementing data heaps in SQL containers. The integrity, power and speed of filing cabinets, implemented in a computer.

Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. Apologies for casting pearls before swine.

Cheers
Derek

[Derek Asirvadem]

> On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 13:48:03 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> So the fact is, since 1984 (I have been using them since 1985), we have completely Relational platforms; modelling tools; and standards for each aspect. Of course, all that is relevant to, only possible for, those who can read and understand the RM.
>
> Many people don't. They are stuck in the pre-1970, pre-relational age, implementing data heaps in SQL containers. The integrity, power and speed of filing cabinets, implemented in a computer.

Upon further reading of the "papers" related to the subject, and upgrading a couple of "databases", I would update that:

Many people don't. They are stuck in the pre-1970, pre-relational model, pre-hierarchical model, implementing Record Filing Systems in SQL containers for convenience. The integrity, power and speed of filing cabinets, implemented in a computer. The integrity, power and speed of Relational Databases is completely lost to them.

And that sad situation is not because they are stupid or vociferously ignorant, certainly some are, but not the main. It is because the "papers" and "books" that purport to be about the RM aren't, they are actually about Record Filing Systems, and contain very little about the RM.

Cheers
Derek