info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Relational Model has MEANING, "Theoreticians" excise MEANING
61 views
Skip to first unread message
Derek Ignatius Asirvadem
Nov 7, 2019, 1:43:36 AM11/7/19
to
> On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 05:14:05 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
James
I am with you on your responses to Vlad, no argument in that subject.
However, you do say some surprising things about the RM, the address of which is the purpose of my post (and not your response to Vlad, even though I have to use some text from that thread).
> Codd refers to the phenomenon of
> "changing over time" in his 1970 paper.
Twice. Yes, but that is in passing, in /describing/ the type of changes that a database will undergo over time. It does not refer to temporal data.
His definition for temporal data is elsewhere.
> If time is in the model, the tuples
>
> { John Smith, 2010, Black }
> { John Smith, 2019, White }
>
> both appear in the database. That doesn't mean there are two people.
> It means there is one person at two times.
(Yes, of course.)
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of the
> tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
Nonsense. You've been drinking at the Kool Aid fountain that is actually Date & Darwens' pig poop, fraudulently marketed as "relational". More a Welational Muddle.
The RM defines Relational Keys, and a Relational Normal Form (which, if you remember our previous interaction re the fact that the RM is Hierarchic, and based on the Hierarchical Paradigm /paradigm as opposed to model, becuase it does not have a published theoretical definition/), demands that the data is Normalised into Trees (hierarchies), and thus the RK is a composite of the levels (domains) in the data hierarchy.
Fig 3(b) Normalised Set
CREATE TABLE salary_history (
__employee_no, -- man#
__job_date,
__salary_date,
__salary,
__PRIMARY KEY ( employee_no, job_date, salary_date )
__)
Such a RK is designed for exactly that: to give the /thing/, a salary_history row:
- context
- and meaning.
While it is possibly useful to think in terms of theory, and to perceive each datum as a fragment isolated, divorced from the context in which it exists (Existential Reality), it is insane to think that that is the only way to think. No, humans who have not had their intellect perverted by consuming D&D pig poop, ie. ordinary un-perverted brain function, know that a thing does not exist as an isolated fragment in space, that it exits in its Existential Reality (as distinct from the "UoD" which I do not agree with but let's not get side-tracked).
James K Lowden is meaningful only because Lowden is a lineage. It would be even more meaningful if you had an uncle or grandfather named James. If you denied your race; your heritage; your lineage, if you rebelled against all that gave your existence meaning, and changed your name Fred Blog, because that is what you do fragmentally, that name would then be devoid of meaning.
> { John Smith, 2010, Black }
> { John Smith, 2019, White }
>
> That doesn't mean there are two people.
> It means there is one person at two times.
>
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of the
> tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
No. The meaning of the Primary Key ( name, date ) is a Person, as varied by a date. Because Name is the normal un-perverted Identifier that MEANs Person.
No. The meaning of the Key columns in each row, particularly the Primary Key which is migrated as a Foreign Key to all owned tables, is inherent (though I would not use that word).
No. While all rows in a database adhere to domains; rules; constraints; etc, that is pedestrian.
> Let me say that again in a different way. To the DBMS -- which (we
> would like to think) implements RM -- name, year, and color are only
> strings we associate with attributes. "John Smith" isn't a person; it's
> a value taken from a domain and assigned to an attribute in a tuple.
> Only that and nothing more.
You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, you have pedalled the theorist bicycle over the edge of theory, into the chasm of madness.
No, as explained above. No, John Smith is the Identifier in a row in the Person table in the database because it reflects a Fact in the universe (UoD to you) that has been stored. John Smith is a Person in the universe.
> > Codd's database solution only stores the last attribute-level value.
> Yes.
> In my world,
Forget about your world or "world". You are interacting with people in this world, and we have methods to do so. Please stick to this world. Otherwise we get caught up in "my unicorn is taller than your slender man" conversations which are straight out of the asylum. Such people are removed from society for the sake of (a) their own safety, and (b) the mental hygiene of human society.
Temporal Data
--------------------
> if I have a table of people,
>
> create table people (name text not NULL primary key);
> If they need a past,
>
> create table people (
> asof date not NULL,
> name text not NULL,
> primary key (asof, name)
> );
You seem to be aware of Codd's definition for temporal data, although you do not give him credit:
1.4 Normal Form/second column/centre
A general name would take a form such as
R (g).r.d
where R is a relational name; g is a generation identifier (optional); r is a role name (optional); d is a domain name.
Your /asof/ is the generation.
If you change:
- name from the insane and self-sabotaging TEXT to CHAR(50)
- Primary Key to ( name, asof )
you will have a temporal Relational table.
The SQL you give is perfectly fine. There are many other ways to code it. In little old, simple SQL, the data sub-language for the Relational Model.
> You seem to want to make the history of people intrinsic in the
language. Obviously, that makes the language more complex, because it
has to express a new dimension, namely time. For that language to be
"better" in any sense, it has to enable simpler, shorter queries than
otherwise possible with simple old SQL.
The point I was leading to is
- Temporal data is not a Codd invention, it is an ordinary requirement (you might have alluded to that "pre-exist even Codd")
- it is a database implementation, as implemented by the designer
--- who may or may not comply with the RM
- if he does comply with the RM, the PK is:
pk.g
Where /pk/ is whatever the PK has to be per the Relational Normal Form. It is already in Codd's salary_history example:
__PRIMARY KEY ( employee_no, job_date, salary_date )
For /g/, whether one uses a DATE or DATETIME or Version, is up to the designer, based on the data. For a rule, to be used across all tables that have a temporal requirement (eg. to be able to re-construct an out-of-date invoice AS AT its creation date), use DATETIME, its saves on JOINS and makes your subqueries consistent.
Cheers
Derek
James
I am with you on your responses to Vlad, no argument in that subject.
However, you do say some surprising things about the RM, the address of which is the purpose of my post (and not your response to Vlad, even though I have to use some text from that thread).
> Codd refers to the phenomenon of
> "changing over time" in his 1970 paper.
Twice. Yes, but that is in passing, in /describing/ the type of changes that a database will undergo over time. It does not refer to temporal data.
His definition for temporal data is elsewhere.
> If time is in the model, the tuples
>
> { John Smith, 2010, Black }
> { John Smith, 2019, White }
>
> both appear in the database. That doesn't mean there are two people.
> It means there is one person at two times.
(Yes, of course.)
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of the
> tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
Nonsense. You've been drinking at the Kool Aid fountain that is actually Date & Darwens' pig poop, fraudulently marketed as "relational". More a Welational Muddle.
The RM defines Relational Keys, and a Relational Normal Form (which, if you remember our previous interaction re the fact that the RM is Hierarchic, and based on the Hierarchical Paradigm /paradigm as opposed to model, becuase it does not have a published theoretical definition/), demands that the data is Normalised into Trees (hierarchies), and thus the RK is a composite of the levels (domains) in the data hierarchy.
Fig 3(b) Normalised Set
CREATE TABLE salary_history (
__employee_no, -- man#
__job_date,
__salary_date,
__salary,
__PRIMARY KEY ( employee_no, job_date, salary_date )
__)
Such a RK is designed for exactly that: to give the /thing/, a salary_history row:
- context
- and meaning.
While it is possibly useful to think in terms of theory, and to perceive each datum as a fragment isolated, divorced from the context in which it exists (Existential Reality), it is insane to think that that is the only way to think. No, humans who have not had their intellect perverted by consuming D&D pig poop, ie. ordinary un-perverted brain function, know that a thing does not exist as an isolated fragment in space, that it exits in its Existential Reality (as distinct from the "UoD" which I do not agree with but let's not get side-tracked).
James K Lowden is meaningful only because Lowden is a lineage. It would be even more meaningful if you had an uncle or grandfather named James. If you denied your race; your heritage; your lineage, if you rebelled against all that gave your existence meaning, and changed your name Fred Blog, because that is what you do fragmentally, that name would then be devoid of meaning.
> { John Smith, 2010, Black }
> { John Smith, 2019, White }
>
> That doesn't mean there are two people.
> It means there is one person at two times.
>
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of the
> tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
No. The meaning of the Primary Key ( name, date ) is a Person, as varied by a date. Because Name is the normal un-perverted Identifier that MEANs Person.
No. The meaning of the Key columns in each row, particularly the Primary Key which is migrated as a Foreign Key to all owned tables, is inherent (though I would not use that word).
No. While all rows in a database adhere to domains; rules; constraints; etc, that is pedestrian.
> Let me say that again in a different way. To the DBMS -- which (we
> would like to think) implements RM -- name, year, and color are only
> strings we associate with attributes. "John Smith" isn't a person; it's
> a value taken from a domain and assigned to an attribute in a tuple.
> Only that and nothing more.
You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, you have pedalled the theorist bicycle over the edge of theory, into the chasm of madness.
No, as explained above. No, John Smith is the Identifier in a row in the Person table in the database because it reflects a Fact in the universe (UoD to you) that has been stored. John Smith is a Person in the universe.
> > Codd's database solution only stores the last attribute-level value.
> Yes.
> In my world,
Forget about your world or "world". You are interacting with people in this world, and we have methods to do so. Please stick to this world. Otherwise we get caught up in "my unicorn is taller than your slender man" conversations which are straight out of the asylum. Such people are removed from society for the sake of (a) their own safety, and (b) the mental hygiene of human society.
Temporal Data
--------------------
> if I have a table of people,
>
> create table people (name text not NULL primary key);
> If they need a past,
>
> create table people (
> asof date not NULL,
> name text not NULL,
> primary key (asof, name)
> );
You seem to be aware of Codd's definition for temporal data, although you do not give him credit:
1.4 Normal Form/second column/centre
A general name would take a form such as
R (g).r.d
where R is a relational name; g is a generation identifier (optional); r is a role name (optional); d is a domain name.
Your /asof/ is the generation.
If you change:
- name from the insane and self-sabotaging TEXT to CHAR(50)
- Primary Key to ( name, asof )
you will have a temporal Relational table.
The SQL you give is perfectly fine. There are many other ways to code it. In little old, simple SQL, the data sub-language for the Relational Model.
> You seem to want to make the history of people intrinsic in the
language. Obviously, that makes the language more complex, because it
has to express a new dimension, namely time. For that language to be
"better" in any sense, it has to enable simpler, shorter queries than
otherwise possible with simple old SQL.
The point I was leading to is
- Temporal data is not a Codd invention, it is an ordinary requirement (you might have alluded to that "pre-exist even Codd")
- it is a database implementation, as implemented by the designer
--- who may or may not comply with the RM
- if he does comply with the RM, the PK is:
pk.g
Where /pk/ is whatever the PK has to be per the Relational Normal Form. It is already in Codd's salary_history example:
__PRIMARY KEY ( employee_no, job_date, salary_date )
For /g/, whether one uses a DATE or DATETIME or Version, is up to the designer, based on the data. For a rule, to be used across all tables that have a temporal requirement (eg. to be able to re-construct an out-of-date invoice AS AT its creation date), use DATETIME, its saves on JOINS and makes your subqueries consistent.
Cheers
Derek
Derek Ignatius Asirvadem
Nov 9, 2019, 8:20:36 AM11/9/19
to
> On Thursday, 7 November 2019 17:43:36 UTC+11, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 05:14:05 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
James
I do not use the word SCHIZOPHRENIC loosely, but with careful deliberation, the kind that schizophrenics are incapable of. While I have no formal qualifications to diagnose patients, this definition has been approved by two qualified, practicing psychiatrists, and two qualified, practising psychologists/counsellors.
> > On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 05:14:05 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
James
While (1) denial of reality is the basis for all mental deformation, the:
(2) failure to connect things that are connected in reality, and
(3) the perception of connection between things that are not connected in reality,
leads to (4) projection of fantasy [subjective, private, "weality"] onto objects in the real world
constitutes schizophrenia. A freak does not need to wait until they are hearing things from people who are not there, to commit murder and mayhem, those four deformities are enough to determine the classification.
I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic and enjoying it. Knock yourself out. But when they infect others, when they teach it, as "education", I do.
The boys and I have been cacking ourselves re your comments about databases, and the RM:
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of the
> tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
I don't know if I can break through the muddle of pig-poop that you have filled your cranium with, in the glorious name of "science", which is pseudo-science to undamaged humans. But I will try:
- "each thing has no meaning" - well, if you excise meaning from something, then of course it has no meaning IN YOUR MIND. But the thing in the world remains unchanged, it has meaning, and those who are not freaked out drooling schizophrenics will obtain value from perceiving that meaning.
- "there is no cause, everything is an accident" - well, if you deny the cause of each thing, then of course it has no causal meaning IN YOUR MIND. But the thing in the world remains unchanged, it has a cause for its existence, and those who are not mentally crippled obtain that causal meaning.
--- the freak perceives that customers and invoices are completely independent, that the only relationship between them is forced upon them, and weak, by humans who are weaker than the freak
--- the undamaged human knows that invoices can only be created by a customer, and are therefore Dependent on a customer for its existence.
--- in Codd's example, which is normal objective reality for the sane,
----- job_history can only exist for, and is therefore dependent on, an employee;
----- salary_history can only exist for, and is dependent on, job_history.
----- And that ownership, that meaning, is implemented by the Relational Key ( employee_no, job_date, salary_date ).
--- In Date & Darwen's Tweedledee Tweedledum dumb dumb universe for droolers, everything is an independent fragment, addressed by physical Record ID.
--- the schizophrenic is in steadfast denial of his own existential reality ("I am an accident of trillions of chemical reactions, with no control of anything, and so are you"), and now that they are not treated in asylums as they used to be, the end is predictable and guaranteed: suicide or homicide.
There is no good reason for teaching normal human beings to think like schizophrenics, to eat pig poop or to stick their reproductive equipment where other humans collect their waste excreta, like the insane do. Except to create unproductive mayhem; destruction; and death.
--
Let me try a completely different approach.
> As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
Now what would that rule be, for the Domain called Name, the column called Name ? Why would the DBA (not you) get together with a bunch of users (also not you), and decide that any Name in the database (not the disparate collection of fragments that you have), should be constrained to:
- CHAR(30)
- Alphabetic chars only, or blank
- Lowercase or uppercase
- Unique in the table in which it is found
Why on earth would they do that ? Why would they ensure that Name in the database has constraints and meaning and expectations ?
Would it have anything to do with the Fact that, in the real world (not your fragmented multiverse), Name has MEANING ?
And thus they implement that in their database, which has MEANING.
Which you, per Date & Darwen, and all their pig-poop-for-brains followers excise. So that it is a tiny fragment divorced, isolated from the reality in which it Exists, so that you can then justify treating it as a fragment.
Cheers
Derek
James K. Lowden
Nov 22, 2019, 2:59:07 PM11/22/19
to
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 05:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The boys and I have been cacking ourselves re your comments about
> databases, and the RM:
>
> > As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of
> > the tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> > information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples
> > adhering to certain rules.
>
Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The boys and I have been cacking ourselves re your comments about
> databases, and the RM:
>
> > As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of
> > the tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> > information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples
> > adhering to certain rules.
>
> The word K-N-I-F-E means nothing, it is just a random collection
> of alphabetic characters, any meaning given to it is a social
> construct
That's true. Words have no inherent meaning outside a social
> of alphabetic characters, any meaning given to it is a social
> construct
construct. What does "fin" mean? To you and me at the beach, perhaps
it's the sign of an approaching shark. It means something else at the
end of "Pauline at the Beach".
It's also true that at picture of a knife is not a knife: to the
digital camera, it is only a collection of 1's and 0's. The camera
treats the data according to certain rules, and you interpret the
result as a picture. It does not see a knife. You do.
So too with your tuple. Relational algebra can join relation R to
relation S. It discards those tuples that do not meet the join
criteria. It offers no opinion on the meaning of those tuples. That
meaning is up to the observer.
> "there is no cause, everything is an accident"
> Why would they ensure that Name in the database has constraints and
> meaning and expectations ?
>
> Would it have anything to do with the Fact that, in the real world
> (not your fragmented multiverse), Name has MEANING ?
abstract model that system implements, have no notion of Name. The
system merely enforces the rules it's supplied with.
I know you have no argument with that, because you know SQL doesn't
distinguish columns by their *ascribed* meaning, but only by their
*defined* properties. As far as SQL is concerned, the only difference
between Name and SerialNumber are their properties. Human beings
invent, and keep, the meanings.
You may think this is never no mind, a distinction with no difference.
That's fine, but it doesn't make you right and me nuts. I agree with
Dijkstra that every attempt to anthropomorphize the machine is fraught
with error. You can skate on that ice, but sooner or later the
metaphor will leak and reality bite.
> I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic
how apt or funny you may think it is. I have direct experience with
mental illness and the destruction it wreaks. It has no place in this
discussion, as you would know if you knew.
--jkl
Derek Ignatius Asirvadem
Nov 23, 2019, 6:54:43 AM11/23/19
to
James
> On Saturday, 23 November 2019 06:59:07 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
> I would ask you to please not use schizophrenia as an insult, no matter
> how apt or funny you may think it is. I have direct experience with
> mental illness and the destruction it wreaks. It has no place in this
> discussion, as you would know if you knew.
I have already explained that my use of the word is careful and considered. I do not use it as an insult. I use it as a technical description of the intellectual process that now passes for "science".
(I did use the term "social construct" mockingly, but that went straight over your head. It is similar to the notion of imposing modern ideologies on past history, which is pure insanity, but hey, it is the new "normal". Please understand that all my previous use of the term "social construct" should have the double quotes around it, to indicate its insanity.)
The vein of this thread remains as:
First, the deterioration of science into schizophrenia [four specific diagnostic intellectual processes already detailed]; pseudo-science; anti-science, which is being taught, as "education". It is indoctrination. This is happening across all sciences, not only this one. After we lost the war, the pig-poop-eaters now run the universities and the "education" [indoctrination] system. It is Modernism, also called "post-modernism". We are in the age of the enslavement of the intellect. I reject it entirely.
Second, there is a difference between purely theoretical theory and applied theory. In this space, we have only pure theoreticians, who are incapable of application of any kind, in evidenced fact, who shrink from any application considerations. That means they should STFU and not make any of their declarations about applied theory, for which, as evidenced, they have no clue, and resist obtaining one.
Engineers who build bridges use applied theory. They couldn't care less about any pure theory tat is outside applied theory. Except when entertaining them at the barbecue or enjoying recreational drugs (same as the Descarteses and Satres, who died from additive use of it). These engineers are not only schooled in physics, but in all aspects of modern building. But this does not stop cannibal freaks from enclosing buildings in highly flammable cladding. Nevertheless, such idiocy stands out as abnormal and anti-standard (normal and standard in cannibal countries).
But not in this industry, database science and data science. Here we have only pure theoreticians, deranged further by Modernism. who deny the existence, and the need for, applied theory and applied theoreticians.
A few examples of highly treasured pure theory that is imbecility and guaranteed failure in the applied theory space. (The quotes do not mean that you personally said it, but that it is the common declaration of pure "theoreticians"):
--1--
Pure pig poop:
"A relation is an abstraction. There is no difference between a stored relation [row] and a derived relation [View]. Therefore we must be able to store a derived relation [SQL UPDATE View]." The reality of Transactions is denied (schizophrenia) in order to maintain the abstraction. Perhaps they are just intellectually crippled, and cannot think in the application space.
Reality since the 1960's DBMS, since 1980's RDBMS, by application scientists:
Every change to the database must be within an ACID Transaction. Therefore there is no such thing as updating a View, no need for such idiocies.
Reality since 1980's RDBMS, by non-scientists:
Nevertheless, the "theoreticians" have ensured that the SQL requirement, and therefore the RDBMS platform suppliers, must implement updatable Views. It does not work. It cannot be implemented. The best implementation is, an INSTEAD OF trigger [Sybase], where when a View is updated, the specific code is executed INSTEAD OF the UPDATE VIEW.
The result is therefore, 95% of the "relational databases" out there, are chock-full of problems caused by scientifically absurd code, that has the mantle of being "theoretically" "valid". And what is worse, they do not know that it is scientifically invalid. Pig-poop "education" is followed by pig-poop implementation.
--2--
Pure pig poop:
"A transaction is an abstraction, and as such, should not consider any physical limitations."
Reality since the 1960's DBMS, since 1980's RDBMS, by application scientists:
Due to real world concerns, such as concurrency and affected volume, every ACID Transaction must be the smallest possible Logical Unit of Work.
Reality since 1980's RDBMS, by non-scientists, as promoted by the "theoreticians":
95% of the "relational databases" out there, are chock-full of problems caused by scientifically absurd code, that has the mantle of being "theoretically" "valid". And what is worse, they do not know that it is scientifically invalid. Pig-poop "education" is followed by pig-poop implementation. Science is completely absent.
The list is very long, and it is not the central issue of this post, so I will cut to the chase ...
--3--
Pure pig poop:
"A word has no meaning, it is just a string of alphabetic characters"
Undamaged human beings since Adam, in the observation and communication of Reality:
a. A word is identifies a concept, and the concept has meaning (otherwise it is not a concept).
b. Further, context has meaning, it is the thing that gives rise to meaning.
c. Therefore, when a word in used in a specific context, it has at least those two layers of meaning
(A context may have many layers in itself, and therefore there may well be many layers of meaning in toto).
Schizophrenics, in denial of Reality:
"A word has no meaning, it is just a string of alphabetic characters"
----
> If time is in the model, the tuples
>
> { John Smith, 2010, Black }
> { John Smith, 2019, White }
>
> both appear in the database. That doesn't mean there are two people.
> It means there is one person at two times.
>
The implementation is the context.
That gives rise to meaning.
Without that context, which means in purely abstract terms, which excises meaning, yes, R and its {a, b, c} have no meaning.
In application terms, we do not have R {a, b, c}.
In application terms, we have words (read again, the definition given above).
In application terms, we have a row, defined by words: Person { FirstName, LastName, Initials, DateOfBirth }.
A pure "theoretician" can perform all sorts of abstract operations on R {a, b, c}. Mental masturbation and self-adulation.
An applied theoretician cannot perform most of those operations. Masturbation, mental or otherwise, is not permitted.
An applied theoretician is limited to those operations that can be performed on eg. Person { FirstName, LastName, Initials, DateOfBirth }, with its due constraints, with its consideration of concurrency and affected volume.
P-E-R-S-O-N is not a random string of characters, it is not a "social construct". It is a word, that identifies a specific and well-understood meaning. Any use of the word in a particular context gives it added meaning.
> As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering to certain rules.
Utter nonsense.
As far as the pure "theoretician" is concerned, who as evidenced, is imprisoned in abstract mental gyrations and as evidenced, is crippled by the [schizophrenic] denial of Reality, of implementation, of the application theory that is required for Reality, sure, the fragments of the RM that he is capable of understanding, is only concerned with tuples.
That is not the RM. That is the fragments of the RM that you can understand.
The RM is not pure theory.
The RM is application theory.
In case you have not noticed, all genuine RDBMS platforms since June 1970 have implemented the RM, to huge success, precisely because it is application theory, precisely because it is way, way, beyond mere pure theory.
Codd spends an awful lot of time in defined implementation issues, and giving the solutions. Using words, which identify concepts in the real world, which have meaning, to those who have not lost their attachment to Reality.
All that is denied by the schizophrenic, in order to declare:
> As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering to certain rules.
As evidenced, you are intellectually imprisoned, do not demand that everyone else must be so imprisoned.
If I have been able to widen your scope of reality even a tiny bit, if you have an interest in this topic, read the RM again, with fresh eyes.
Take just one concept, the central one. Codd's Relational Normal Form, which is denied by the schizophrenic Date & Darwen herd, and by you as a promoter of their pig poop, which is fraudulently promoted as "relational".
In addition to giving an R { a, b, c } when discussing a relation in purely theoretical terms, he gives a real world example (full definition, as well as in the source document, in my first post in this thread), using words (concepts, meaning), that are meaningful to the un-perveted reader. He gives many application considerations, one example is the external [import; export] meaningfulness of a Relational Key, that makes the RK an absolute demand of the RM.
But not for those who [schizophrenically] perceive only the few fragments that they can comprehend, who [schizophrenically] deny the application theory that the RM defines. Not for those who perceive a word as a string of random characters, who deny that a word identifies a definition of a concept (meaning a very specific thing), or that context gives added meaning.
----
Ok, now for the specifics of your post, which is a response to a few fragments, bits of my post.
> > The boys and I have been cacking ourselves re your comments about
> > databases, and the RM:
> >
> > > As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of
> > > the tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> > > information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples
> > > adhering to certain rules.
> >
> > The word K-N-I-F-E means nothing, it is just a random collection
> > of alphabetic characters, any meaning given to it is a social
> > construct
>
> That's true.
God help me.
First, it did not occur to me that that statement could be taken as a serious one, especially given my post, which is the overarching context for that statement. That statement is mocking the schizophrenic type of anti-logic that you use in your posts, to justify your isolation of a fragment of some thing, AND in schizophrenic denial of the other, rather obvious, facts about the thing.
It is also a mockery of the notion of "social construct", which I will explain in a minute.
Second, as usual, you have taken a fragment of something I said, isolated it from the context in which it EXISTS, which gave it meaning, and then schizophrenically treated the fragment as if it exists alone, in solitary confinement, devoid of the context and meaning that you removed from it. What I actually said was:
> > That is not the postman banging your wife, that is an accident, the result of trillions and trillions of chemical reactions, that just happen to look like a man who is not schizophrenic and can bang. That is not a blood-streaked knife in his hand, it just looks like one. The word K-N-I-F-E means nothing, it is just a random collection of alphabetic characters, any meaning given to it is a social construct by very primitive people who need social constructs. You are above all that, which is why you never bang your wife.
To explain, it is only an unhinged drooler that would deny the first two sentences; seven clauses, that define the context, and take the third sentence out-of-context as the only sentence, and fail to see that I am mocking the kind of deranged "thinking" that you engage in.
To explain.
1. the string K-N-I-F-E forms a word, which does mean something very specific in English. It does not mean anything else. It is not a random or accidental collection of alphabetic characters. OED:
"an instrument composed of a blade fixed into a handle, used for cutting or as a weapon.
• a cutting blade forming part of a machine."
2. In addition to the meaning of the word alone, the word appears in a particular context. A blood-streaked K_N_I_F_E in the hand of the postman who has been banging your wife means something specific, beyond just the meaning of the word in isolation.
Therefore, the following statements are false, the realm of pathologically schizophrenic nutcases, such as you, because you have confirm the hysterical statements:
- "The word K-N-I-F-E means nothing"
- "it is just a random collection of alphabetic characters"
- "any meaning given to it is a social construct"
The following statement mocks the notion of "social construct", as a Straw Man vehicle used by those who prosecute the war on human society and the intellect, to demean the things that they intend to destroy:
- "... by very primitive people who need social constructs"
That means you, the author of the original statement that I responded to.
Third, it is a perfect example of what I have defined as the problem, with deranged pure "theoreticians"; with the Date & Darwen sophistry and schizophrenic denial of reality, of what they profess to be teaching; and now as evidenced severally, with you. Thank you.
It is your robotic reaction (not response) to any valid statement, to pick out something that you can use, and use it out of context. That automated nature means that you are functioning at a level far below that of a human being, as a automaton, the way the mentally ill do.
If you were capable, what you just did would be dishonest. But given the small mountain of evidence otherwise, it stands as yet another article of evidence of your severe intellectual impairment, the very thing I am defining in this thread that deems database "theoreticians" mentally bankrupt, and thus crippled in their perception and understanding of the RM; of Relational theory; of relational databases; of database science; of data science.
And thus in no position at all, to make any statement whatsoever, to human beings who understand the RM and Relational theory, those who implement genuine Relational databases that you do not understand. Unless you like your "argument" being taken apart and laughed at, as happens every single time. The boys are going to have a good time with me on Monday.
----
> Words have no inherent meaning outside a social construct.
You need to get to an institution called a library. Ask for a book called the Dictionary of English.
A Knife means a Knife, a whole Knife, and nothing but a Knife, so help me Codd. A Knife means a Knife regardless of "social construct". If the postman knifes you, you will bleed and die, regardless of what you think a Knife means or does not mean. And regardless of any "social construct" that you may have, that the postman may have, or that the Knife may have.
> What does "fin" mean?
A word in English defining a specific concept. One of five to eight thin bony appendages that a fish has, and uses for fine navigatory movements.
> To you and me at the beach, perhaps it's the sign of an approaching shark.
Yes. We live in Australia, famous for swimming in the ocean, and sharing it with sharks, the presence of which is observed due to its large dorsal fin. That is the context in which the word "fin", unchanged, has additional meaning. Neither of any of those nouns are a "social construct", they exist in hard cold reality.
> It means something else at the end of "Pauline at the Beach".
Rubbish.
First, you have switched tracks from English to French, the act of a schizophrenic, in denial that we were thus far speaking English. In addition to the evidenced mental derangement, you may be either dishonest or plain stupid, I am not sure which.
Second, "Pauline at the Beach" in the North of France, which has no sharks, no fear of "Fin", has nothing in common with Australians at the beach, which is known for sharks, where "Fin" engenders fear. Remember my clinical definition of schizophrenia, in post 2, item [3] "perception of connection between things that are not connected in reality".
Third, and in this, I am forced to indulge your schizophrenic switch from English to French, "Fin" is a word that has specific meaning in French, it is the end of a thing. The English equivalent is "The End". It can be applied to any thing, such as declaring the end of a book or film.
Again, no "social constructs" there. Except for the content of "Pauline at the Beach", which is a despicable social construct, as typically used by those who seek to destroy the human race. It glorifies fornication and incontinence, in denial of the damaging effect such social constructs have on the human soul.
> It's also true that at picture of a knife is not a knife:
So what. Neither is a painting of a knife, or a mental concept of a knife. The distinction is relevant when it is, and not when it is not. The context provides the relevance. Without a context, the statement is meaningless. Sophistry, a set up, for more to come.
> to the
> digital camera, it is only a collection of 1's and 0's. The camera
> treats the data according to certain rules, and you interpret the
> result as a picture.
Nonsense, but I will indulge you ...
> It does not see a knife. You do.
God help me. For a allegedly technical person, you are surprisingly, seriously ignorant about technology. The camera is an inanimate object, a machine. The act of seeing is an animate function that is limited to animate creatures that have a eye. Informing us sagely that a camera does not see is idiotic, because a camera cannot see. Anything. Not even zeros and ones.
This is the anthropomorphism that deranged humans have with animals, now extended to machines. And then attempting to make fine distinctions that are meaningless. Intelligence does mean making good distinctions, whereas insanity; sophistry, means making stupid or meaningless distinctions.
A camera sees nothing and does nothing. A capable human being arranges a number of electronic components to build the physical structures that replicate the function of an eye. (The physical organ has to exist before the function that it hosts.) He then programs a computer to perform various low-level functions that operate upon the components to make them useful, and to make the arrangement useful. He then programs a computer to perform high-level functions that are relevant and easily recognised by a human, such that it is useful to a human.
At no time does a camera "see" or "do" or "interpret" anything of its own accord, it in a mere machine operated by humans. The "rules" you mention are the program, written by a human, before they existed in the computer. The "interpretation" you mention was long before the fact of the picture or the camera or the components, it had to do with observing Reality and forming robust conclusions (scientiam). The camera does not actually "treat" the data, it just performs the operations that are programmed, again by a human, again based on a priori knowledge.
The end result, a picture of a knife, if faithful to the original, is recognised (not "interpreted") by a human, as a picture of a knife (not a knife), using exactly the same organs and functions that the human uses to recognise (not "interpret") a real knife.
So freaking what. The human being observes the function of the camera and the end result as having value, and thus relevant. The drooling idiot denies the existence of a knife and obsesses about the zeroes and ones; the colours in the rainbow; the interpretation of his snot as worthy of his next meal or having to wait a little longer; and the varying brightness of the lovely LEDs.
A row in a database table Person { FirstName, LastName }, that is constrained according to the nature of reality, to the extent that the modeller sees fit for the purpose, with the values (combinations of zeros and ones that are arranged in words and half-words that mean something specific and not anything else, formed together in careful arrangements [not accidental, not random] to make English words that mean something specific and not anything else):
John, Smith
knows that that means there is a Person named John Smith that is relevant to the purpose of the database.
If he sees those values in a row in the Invoice table, in the Primary Key, and his data modeller was educated in Relational theory, he will know that that means the Invoice is owned by the Person named John Smith.
The deranged schizophrenic will deny all that and insist that the zeroes and ones having meaning in and of itself, and have no meaning beyond that. He will rant and rail about the R and the S having no meaning, in steadfast denial that R and S may be given meaning by a human being who is capable of formulating meaning and implementing it. Acknowledging that fact causes shame and cowering due to the exposure of his disability, his inferiority, it may lead to suicide, which is the predictable end for the untreated insane.
Sad, but, so what. That is the nature of Reality.
> So too with your tuple.
Row. The real thing, not the abstraction of the thing that occurred before I created the real thing.
> Relational algebra can join relation R to
> relation S. It discards those tuples that do not meet the join
> criteria. It offers no opinion on the meaning of those tuples.
Marvellous. For Relational Algebra. A wonderful mathematical abstraction.
So what. Beyond pure theory, there is applied theory, which concerns theory that is useful, the subset of pure theory that can be applied. And if proved, it is no longer theory, it is real, it is law.
"Theoreticians" who deny the real world; applied theory; existential reality, cannot understand that. They insist that their idiotic pure theory is the only thing that is relevant, and that human beings who confer meaning on everything in the universe, proceeding from theory to applied theory to law, should be as crippled as they are, and should perceive the world only as Rs and Ss; as zeros and ones; as random accidents of chance.
In the real world, computers are purchased for a purpose, databases are programmed for a purpose, John Smith has meaning in and of itself, and it has added meaning in the Person table, and added meaning again in the Invoice table.
Dabble in the sandbox of zeroes and ones, fine, because that is all you can do. Do not insist on crippling human beings to the crippled function that you are capable of. The mentally ill are not equal to the sane.
> That meaning is up to the observer.
Yes. And it can be placed upon the zeroes and ones, upon the Rs and the Ss. That is why we use real words, which have specific meaning, to implement (not merely and loosely "ascribe") the meaning of the words on the rows. That is why the rows are no longer the abstract relations that were very very useful to contemplate, and formed the intellectual foundation upon which we implemented the rows.
That is also why humans use diagrams instead of text “schemas”. We engage the right hemisphere, which is supposed to be 94-96% of our brain power. That is also why the “theoreticians” cannot read and understand diagrams: they are limited to the left hemisphere, to 4-6% of normal human brain power..
> > "there is no cause, everything is an accident"
>
> I never said that.
Sorry. I did not mean that you specifically said that. I meant that that is the mantra of Modern "science", pseudo-science to scientists, pig poop that is promoted as “science". And you included because that is, as evidenced, what you promote.
I am writing a textbook, which shall remain nameless until publication. I have had to add a whole PART ONE in front, to deal with the filth that passes for "science", the indoctrination provided at tertiary level, to identify and eliminate the pig poop, in order to provide a clean slate so that the matter of the textbook can be absorbed without that hindrance.
Just watch a minute of this, from 06:08 to 06:48. This freak, replete with the squeaky voice of the schizophrenic, actually declares insanity and the denial of thousands of years of science, as the new, Modern "science".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JsKwyRFiYY
Hence I know, not only from that of course, that Modern "science" is filth, pig poop, promoted by those who won the war against humanity, and "education" is indoctrination. In:
(The first 6 minutes is a clumsy Straw Man argument [he thinks it is grandiose] that the deranged squeak uses to "justify" his denial of ancient and modern science up to the advent of Modernism. Easy to expose it for what it is, and to take apart. But I won't do that here.)
> > Why would they ensure that Name in the database has constraints and
> > meaning and expectations ?
> >
> > Would it have anything to do with the Fact that, in the real world
> > (not your fragmented multiverse), Name has MEANING ?
>
> This you know: The system in which that information is kept, and the
> abstract model that system implements, have no notion of Name. The
> system merely enforces the rules it's supplied with.
You do not think for me, please and thank you.
Pathetically false. It is the half-truth that I have detailed in this thread, and in this post. That is true for a deranged, schizophrenic child, who is intellectually crippled by obsession of something irrelevant (which is true), AND in denial of the rest of Reality But it is not the whole truth. And that half-truth cannot stand against the rest of the truth.
Which is, that un-perverted, undamaged humans, who have not been infected with the Date & Darwen pig poop, the Modernist "science", understand meaning and hold it to be of value. We can implement meaning when we implement (applied theory) the abstract pure theory in a real system. We are not limited like imbeciles are, to abstraction and the limitations of abstraction. The half-truth is, the abstract model has no notion of Name. The statement is idiotic because abstraction cannot foster notions.
The rest of the truth is, the real world is not abstract, everything has meaning; a purpose; causality. We can implement that meaning by programming rules (all constraints), which then results in the system having the meaning that we have implemented. The implementation is, by definition, not an abstraction.
That "the system merely enforces the rules it's supplied with" is yet another meaningless statement, a meaningless "truism". So what. Once the system is programmed with rules that implement meaning, the system has the implemented meaning, way beyond the pathetic statement. If the system is programmed with incorrect rules, the rows in the system will convey incorrect meaning. Only a complete, hysterical nutcase would say, "there is no meaning, the zeroes and ones, the alphabetic characters, have no meaning".
> I know you have no argument with that, because you know SQL doesn't
> distinguish columns by their *ascribed* meaning, but only by their
> *defined* properties. As far as SQL is concerned, the only difference
> between Name and SerialNumber are their properties. Human beings
> invent, and keep, the meanings.
And implement those meanings.
Read the RM. It has meaning. The Relational Normal Form honours those meanings, and gives directions for implementing those meanings. Those of us who are not mentally crippled understand the RM, and implement meaning in our databases.
Deny that all you like, knock yourself out. It does not make the RM divorced from meaning, it does not make our databases with implemented meaning false, it just makes you a schizophrenic, totally unemployable wrt an implementation of any kind.
> You may think this is never no mind, a distinction with no difference.
> That's fine, but it doesn't make you right and me nuts. I agree with
> Dijkstra that every attempt to anthropomorphize the machine is fraught
> with error. You can skate on that ice, but sooner or later the
> metaphor will leak and reality bite.
No, it is the other way around. First the distinction is irrelevant, but that is not the point. Nothing to do with Dijkstra. The problem is your (not mine) denial of reality. You have no clue how to implement meaning in your abstract-only world, made up of fragmented zeroes and ones. No problem. Be as intellectually crippled as you like. But when you insist that that is the only way that everyone else should think, you are not only schizophrenic, but fascist as well.
> I have direct experience with mental illness and the destruction it wreaks
Very sorry to hear that. I have three close friends who have committed suicide over the decades. Untreated mental illness leads to suicide/homicide, the natural and predictable result of denial of reality (each of those acts is committed by only the insane, the sane do not kill themselves or others). In particular, each person's existential reality.
Long before suicide/homicide, yes, it wreaks destruction on everyone who has to deal with the person. That is why we do not permit the mentally ill to hold positions that require responsibility. By definition, as implemented in law in most civilised countries, the mentally ill are legally declared as not capable of being responsible, and thus we have to take responsibility for them. Blow their noses, wipe their asses, and keep them away from children and animals.
Cheers
Derek
> On Saturday, 23 November 2019 06:59:07 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
> I would ask you to please not use schizophrenia as an insult, no matter
> how apt or funny you may think it is. I have direct experience with
> mental illness and the destruction it wreaks. It has no place in this
> discussion, as you would know if you knew.
(I did use the term "social construct" mockingly, but that went straight over your head. It is similar to the notion of imposing modern ideologies on past history, which is pure insanity, but hey, it is the new "normal". Please understand that all my previous use of the term "social construct" should have the double quotes around it, to indicate its insanity.)
The vein of this thread remains as:
> > I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic and enjoying it. Knock yourself out. But when they infect others, when they teach it, as "education", I do.
and:
> > I don't know if I can break through the muddle of pig-poop that you have filled your cranium with, in the glorious name of "science", which is pseudo-science to undamaged humans. But I will try
Before I answer the specifics, let me say this. What is being exposed here, and in my general disgust for "theoreticians" in my interaction in this forum and TTM, is this. Two points.
First, the deterioration of science into schizophrenia [four specific diagnostic intellectual processes already detailed]; pseudo-science; anti-science, which is being taught, as "education". It is indoctrination. This is happening across all sciences, not only this one. After we lost the war, the pig-poop-eaters now run the universities and the "education" [indoctrination] system. It is Modernism, also called "post-modernism". We are in the age of the enslavement of the intellect. I reject it entirely.
Second, there is a difference between purely theoretical theory and applied theory. In this space, we have only pure theoreticians, who are incapable of application of any kind, in evidenced fact, who shrink from any application considerations. That means they should STFU and not make any of their declarations about applied theory, for which, as evidenced, they have no clue, and resist obtaining one.
Engineers who build bridges use applied theory. They couldn't care less about any pure theory tat is outside applied theory. Except when entertaining them at the barbecue or enjoying recreational drugs (same as the Descarteses and Satres, who died from additive use of it). These engineers are not only schooled in physics, but in all aspects of modern building. But this does not stop cannibal freaks from enclosing buildings in highly flammable cladding. Nevertheless, such idiocy stands out as abnormal and anti-standard (normal and standard in cannibal countries).
But not in this industry, database science and data science. Here we have only pure theoreticians, deranged further by Modernism. who deny the existence, and the need for, applied theory and applied theoreticians.
A few examples of highly treasured pure theory that is imbecility and guaranteed failure in the applied theory space. (The quotes do not mean that you personally said it, but that it is the common declaration of pure "theoreticians"):
--1--
Pure pig poop:
"A relation is an abstraction. There is no difference between a stored relation [row] and a derived relation [View]. Therefore we must be able to store a derived relation [SQL UPDATE View]." The reality of Transactions is denied (schizophrenia) in order to maintain the abstraction. Perhaps they are just intellectually crippled, and cannot think in the application space.
Reality since the 1960's DBMS, since 1980's RDBMS, by application scientists:
Every change to the database must be within an ACID Transaction. Therefore there is no such thing as updating a View, no need for such idiocies.
Reality since 1980's RDBMS, by non-scientists:
Nevertheless, the "theoreticians" have ensured that the SQL requirement, and therefore the RDBMS platform suppliers, must implement updatable Views. It does not work. It cannot be implemented. The best implementation is, an INSTEAD OF trigger [Sybase], where when a View is updated, the specific code is executed INSTEAD OF the UPDATE VIEW.
The result is therefore, 95% of the "relational databases" out there, are chock-full of problems caused by scientifically absurd code, that has the mantle of being "theoretically" "valid". And what is worse, they do not know that it is scientifically invalid. Pig-poop "education" is followed by pig-poop implementation.
--2--
Pure pig poop:
"A transaction is an abstraction, and as such, should not consider any physical limitations."
Reality since the 1960's DBMS, since 1980's RDBMS, by application scientists:
Due to real world concerns, such as concurrency and affected volume, every ACID Transaction must be the smallest possible Logical Unit of Work.
Reality since 1980's RDBMS, by non-scientists, as promoted by the "theoreticians":
95% of the "relational databases" out there, are chock-full of problems caused by scientifically absurd code, that has the mantle of being "theoretically" "valid". And what is worse, they do not know that it is scientifically invalid. Pig-poop "education" is followed by pig-poop implementation. Science is completely absent.
The list is very long, and it is not the central issue of this post, so I will cut to the chase ...
--3--
Pure pig poop:
"A word has no meaning, it is just a string of alphabetic characters"
Undamaged human beings since Adam, in the observation and communication of Reality:
a. A word is identifies a concept, and the concept has meaning (otherwise it is not a concept).
b. Further, context has meaning, it is the thing that gives rise to meaning.
c. Therefore, when a word in used in a specific context, it has at least those two layers of meaning
(A context may have many layers in itself, and therefore there may well be many layers of meaning in toto).
Schizophrenics, in denial of Reality:
"A word has no meaning, it is just a string of alphabetic characters"
----
> If time is in the model, the tuples
>
> { John Smith, 2010, Black }
> { John Smith, 2019, White }
>
> both appear in the database. That doesn't mean there are two people.
> It means there is one person at two times.
>
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of the
> tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
Being an application theoretician, I don't have tuples, I have rows. If there is a tuple that is not intended for implementation as a row, outside the classroom, I am not interested in it. Agreed, a tuple and its fragments and its non-meaning are relevant only for pure theory that excises application theory. A tuple that is intended for implementation as a row, is therefore not that idiotic tuple that you insist it is. Therefore we use the term "row".
> tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
The implementation is the context.
That gives rise to meaning.
Without that context, which means in purely abstract terms, which excises meaning, yes, R and its {a, b, c} have no meaning.
In application terms, we do not have R {a, b, c}.
In application terms, we have words (read again, the definition given above).
In application terms, we have a row, defined by words: Person { FirstName, LastName, Initials, DateOfBirth }.
A pure "theoretician" can perform all sorts of abstract operations on R {a, b, c}. Mental masturbation and self-adulation.
An applied theoretician cannot perform most of those operations. Masturbation, mental or otherwise, is not permitted.
An applied theoretician is limited to those operations that can be performed on eg. Person { FirstName, LastName, Initials, DateOfBirth }, with its due constraints, with its consideration of concurrency and affected volume.
P-E-R-S-O-N is not a random string of characters, it is not a "social construct". It is a word, that identifies a specific and well-understood meaning. Any use of the word in a particular context gives it added meaning.
> As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering to certain rules.
As far as the pure "theoretician" is concerned, who as evidenced, is imprisoned in abstract mental gyrations and as evidenced, is crippled by the [schizophrenic] denial of Reality, of implementation, of the application theory that is required for Reality, sure, the fragments of the RM that he is capable of understanding, is only concerned with tuples.
That is not the RM. That is the fragments of the RM that you can understand.
The RM is not pure theory.
The RM is application theory.
In case you have not noticed, all genuine RDBMS platforms since June 1970 have implemented the RM, to huge success, precisely because it is application theory, precisely because it is way, way, beyond mere pure theory.
Codd spends an awful lot of time in defined implementation issues, and giving the solutions. Using words, which identify concepts in the real world, which have meaning, to those who have not lost their attachment to Reality.
All that is denied by the schizophrenic, in order to declare:
> As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering to certain rules.
Hysterical, idiotic nonsense. As I said:
> > I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic and enjoying it. Knock yourself out. But when they infect others, when they teach it, as "education", I do.
I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic and viewing the real world as dis-integrated fragments; viewing the RM as only the fragments that he can perceive, and in so doing, denying the great mass of it. Knock yourself out. But when they infect others, when they teach it as the ONLY perception, as "education", when they teach the denial of application theory, I do.
> > I don't have a problem with someone being schizophrenic and enjoying it. Knock yourself out. But when they infect others, when they teach it, as "education", I do.
As evidenced, you are intellectually imprisoned, do not demand that everyone else must be so imprisoned.
If I have been able to widen your scope of reality even a tiny bit, if you have an interest in this topic, read the RM again, with fresh eyes.
Take just one concept, the central one. Codd's Relational Normal Form, which is denied by the schizophrenic Date & Darwen herd, and by you as a promoter of their pig poop, which is fraudulently promoted as "relational".
In addition to giving an R { a, b, c } when discussing a relation in purely theoretical terms, he gives a real world example (full definition, as well as in the source document, in my first post in this thread), using words (concepts, meaning), that are meaningful to the un-perveted reader. He gives many application considerations, one example is the external [import; export] meaningfulness of a Relational Key, that makes the RK an absolute demand of the RM.
But not for those who [schizophrenically] perceive only the few fragments that they can comprehend, who [schizophrenically] deny the application theory that the RM defines. Not for those who perceive a word as a string of random characters, who deny that a word identifies a definition of a concept (meaning a very specific thing), or that context gives added meaning.
----
Ok, now for the specifics of your post, which is a response to a few fragments, bits of my post.
> > The boys and I have been cacking ourselves re your comments about
> > databases, and the RM:
> >
> > > As a matter of fact, it doesn't even *mean* that: the meaning of
> > > the tuples isn't inherent; it's ascribed by humans interpreting the
> > > information. As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples
> > > adhering to certain rules.
> >
> > The word K-N-I-F-E means nothing, it is just a random collection
> > of alphabetic characters, any meaning given to it is a social
> > construct
>
> That's true.
First, it did not occur to me that that statement could be taken as a serious one, especially given my post, which is the overarching context for that statement. That statement is mocking the schizophrenic type of anti-logic that you use in your posts, to justify your isolation of a fragment of some thing, AND in schizophrenic denial of the other, rather obvious, facts about the thing.
It is also a mockery of the notion of "social construct", which I will explain in a minute.
Second, as usual, you have taken a fragment of something I said, isolated it from the context in which it EXISTS, which gave it meaning, and then schizophrenically treated the fragment as if it exists alone, in solitary confinement, devoid of the context and meaning that you removed from it. What I actually said was:
> > That is not the postman banging your wife, that is an accident, the result of trillions and trillions of chemical reactions, that just happen to look like a man who is not schizophrenic and can bang. That is not a blood-streaked knife in his hand, it just looks like one. The word K-N-I-F-E means nothing, it is just a random collection of alphabetic characters, any meaning given to it is a social construct by very primitive people who need social constructs. You are above all that, which is why you never bang your wife.
To explain.
1. the string K-N-I-F-E forms a word, which does mean something very specific in English. It does not mean anything else. It is not a random or accidental collection of alphabetic characters. OED:
"an instrument composed of a blade fixed into a handle, used for cutting or as a weapon.
• a cutting blade forming part of a machine."
2. In addition to the meaning of the word alone, the word appears in a particular context. A blood-streaked K_N_I_F_E in the hand of the postman who has been banging your wife means something specific, beyond just the meaning of the word in isolation.
Therefore, the following statements are false, the realm of pathologically schizophrenic nutcases, such as you, because you have confirm the hysterical statements:
- "The word K-N-I-F-E means nothing"
- "it is just a random collection of alphabetic characters"
- "any meaning given to it is a social construct"
The following statement mocks the notion of "social construct", as a Straw Man vehicle used by those who prosecute the war on human society and the intellect, to demean the things that they intend to destroy:
- "... by very primitive people who need social constructs"
That means you, the author of the original statement that I responded to.
Third, it is a perfect example of what I have defined as the problem, with deranged pure "theoreticians"; with the Date & Darwen sophistry and schizophrenic denial of reality, of what they profess to be teaching; and now as evidenced severally, with you. Thank you.
It is your robotic reaction (not response) to any valid statement, to pick out something that you can use, and use it out of context. That automated nature means that you are functioning at a level far below that of a human being, as a automaton, the way the mentally ill do.
If you were capable, what you just did would be dishonest. But given the small mountain of evidence otherwise, it stands as yet another article of evidence of your severe intellectual impairment, the very thing I am defining in this thread that deems database "theoreticians" mentally bankrupt, and thus crippled in their perception and understanding of the RM; of Relational theory; of relational databases; of database science; of data science.
And thus in no position at all, to make any statement whatsoever, to human beings who understand the RM and Relational theory, those who implement genuine Relational databases that you do not understand. Unless you like your "argument" being taken apart and laughed at, as happens every single time. The boys are going to have a good time with me on Monday.
----
> Words have no inherent meaning outside a social construct.
A Knife means a Knife, a whole Knife, and nothing but a Knife, so help me Codd. A Knife means a Knife regardless of "social construct". If the postman knifes you, you will bleed and die, regardless of what you think a Knife means or does not mean. And regardless of any "social construct" that you may have, that the postman may have, or that the Knife may have.
> What does "fin" mean?
A word in English defining a specific concept. One of five to eight thin bony appendages that a fish has, and uses for fine navigatory movements.
> To you and me at the beach, perhaps it's the sign of an approaching shark.
> It means something else at the end of "Pauline at the Beach".
First, you have switched tracks from English to French, the act of a schizophrenic, in denial that we were thus far speaking English. In addition to the evidenced mental derangement, you may be either dishonest or plain stupid, I am not sure which.
Second, "Pauline at the Beach" in the North of France, which has no sharks, no fear of "Fin", has nothing in common with Australians at the beach, which is known for sharks, where "Fin" engenders fear. Remember my clinical definition of schizophrenia, in post 2, item [3] "perception of connection between things that are not connected in reality".
Third, and in this, I am forced to indulge your schizophrenic switch from English to French, "Fin" is a word that has specific meaning in French, it is the end of a thing. The English equivalent is "The End". It can be applied to any thing, such as declaring the end of a book or film.
Again, no "social constructs" there. Except for the content of "Pauline at the Beach", which is a despicable social construct, as typically used by those who seek to destroy the human race. It glorifies fornication and incontinence, in denial of the damaging effect such social constructs have on the human soul.
> It's also true that at picture of a knife is not a knife:
> to the
> digital camera, it is only a collection of 1's and 0's. The camera
> treats the data according to certain rules, and you interpret the
> result as a picture.
> It does not see a knife. You do.
This is the anthropomorphism that deranged humans have with animals, now extended to machines. And then attempting to make fine distinctions that are meaningless. Intelligence does mean making good distinctions, whereas insanity; sophistry, means making stupid or meaningless distinctions.
A camera sees nothing and does nothing. A capable human being arranges a number of electronic components to build the physical structures that replicate the function of an eye. (The physical organ has to exist before the function that it hosts.) He then programs a computer to perform various low-level functions that operate upon the components to make them useful, and to make the arrangement useful. He then programs a computer to perform high-level functions that are relevant and easily recognised by a human, such that it is useful to a human.
At no time does a camera "see" or "do" or "interpret" anything of its own accord, it in a mere machine operated by humans. The "rules" you mention are the program, written by a human, before they existed in the computer. The "interpretation" you mention was long before the fact of the picture or the camera or the components, it had to do with observing Reality and forming robust conclusions (scientiam). The camera does not actually "treat" the data, it just performs the operations that are programmed, again by a human, again based on a priori knowledge.
The end result, a picture of a knife, if faithful to the original, is recognised (not "interpreted") by a human, as a picture of a knife (not a knife), using exactly the same organs and functions that the human uses to recognise (not "interpret") a real knife.
So freaking what. The human being observes the function of the camera and the end result as having value, and thus relevant. The drooling idiot denies the existence of a knife and obsesses about the zeroes and ones; the colours in the rainbow; the interpretation of his snot as worthy of his next meal or having to wait a little longer; and the varying brightness of the lovely LEDs.
A row in a database table Person { FirstName, LastName }, that is constrained according to the nature of reality, to the extent that the modeller sees fit for the purpose, with the values (combinations of zeros and ones that are arranged in words and half-words that mean something specific and not anything else, formed together in careful arrangements [not accidental, not random] to make English words that mean something specific and not anything else):
John, Smith
knows that that means there is a Person named John Smith that is relevant to the purpose of the database.
If he sees those values in a row in the Invoice table, in the Primary Key, and his data modeller was educated in Relational theory, he will know that that means the Invoice is owned by the Person named John Smith.
The deranged schizophrenic will deny all that and insist that the zeroes and ones having meaning in and of itself, and have no meaning beyond that. He will rant and rail about the R and the S having no meaning, in steadfast denial that R and S may be given meaning by a human being who is capable of formulating meaning and implementing it. Acknowledging that fact causes shame and cowering due to the exposure of his disability, his inferiority, it may lead to suicide, which is the predictable end for the untreated insane.
Sad, but, so what. That is the nature of Reality.
> So too with your tuple.
> Relational algebra can join relation R to
> relation S. It discards those tuples that do not meet the join
> criteria. It offers no opinion on the meaning of those tuples.
So what. Beyond pure theory, there is applied theory, which concerns theory that is useful, the subset of pure theory that can be applied. And if proved, it is no longer theory, it is real, it is law.
"Theoreticians" who deny the real world; applied theory; existential reality, cannot understand that. They insist that their idiotic pure theory is the only thing that is relevant, and that human beings who confer meaning on everything in the universe, proceeding from theory to applied theory to law, should be as crippled as they are, and should perceive the world only as Rs and Ss; as zeros and ones; as random accidents of chance.
In the real world, computers are purchased for a purpose, databases are programmed for a purpose, John Smith has meaning in and of itself, and it has added meaning in the Person table, and added meaning again in the Invoice table.
Dabble in the sandbox of zeroes and ones, fine, because that is all you can do. Do not insist on crippling human beings to the crippled function that you are capable of. The mentally ill are not equal to the sane.
> That meaning is up to the observer.
That is also why humans use diagrams instead of text “schemas”. We engage the right hemisphere, which is supposed to be 94-96% of our brain power. That is also why the “theoreticians” cannot read and understand diagrams: they are limited to the left hemisphere, to 4-6% of normal human brain power..
> > "there is no cause, everything is an accident"
>
> I never said that.
I am writing a textbook, which shall remain nameless until publication. I have had to add a whole PART ONE in front, to deal with the filth that passes for "science", the indoctrination provided at tertiary level, to identify and eliminate the pig poop, in order to provide a clean slate so that the matter of the textbook can be absorbed without that hindrance.
Just watch a minute of this, from 06:08 to 06:48. This freak, replete with the squeaky voice of the schizophrenic, actually declares insanity and the denial of thousands of years of science, as the new, Modern "science".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JsKwyRFiYY
Hence I know, not only from that of course, that Modern "science" is filth, pig poop, promoted by those who won the war against humanity, and "education" is indoctrination. In:
> > "there is no cause, everything is an accident"
And now "nothing has meaning", therefore "the meaning that does exist in the RM, does not mean anything”. ROTFLMAO.
(The first 6 minutes is a clumsy Straw Man argument [he thinks it is grandiose] that the deranged squeak uses to "justify" his denial of ancient and modern science up to the advent of Modernism. Easy to expose it for what it is, and to take apart. But I won't do that here.)
> > Why would they ensure that Name in the database has constraints and
> > meaning and expectations ?
> >
> > Would it have anything to do with the Fact that, in the real world
> > (not your fragmented multiverse), Name has MEANING ?
>
> This you know: The system in which that information is kept, and the
> abstract model that system implements, have no notion of Name. The
> system merely enforces the rules it's supplied with.
Pathetically false. It is the half-truth that I have detailed in this thread, and in this post. That is true for a deranged, schizophrenic child, who is intellectually crippled by obsession of something irrelevant (which is true), AND in denial of the rest of Reality But it is not the whole truth. And that half-truth cannot stand against the rest of the truth.
Which is, that un-perverted, undamaged humans, who have not been infected with the Date & Darwen pig poop, the Modernist "science", understand meaning and hold it to be of value. We can implement meaning when we implement (applied theory) the abstract pure theory in a real system. We are not limited like imbeciles are, to abstraction and the limitations of abstraction. The half-truth is, the abstract model has no notion of Name. The statement is idiotic because abstraction cannot foster notions.
The rest of the truth is, the real world is not abstract, everything has meaning; a purpose; causality. We can implement that meaning by programming rules (all constraints), which then results in the system having the meaning that we have implemented. The implementation is, by definition, not an abstraction.
That "the system merely enforces the rules it's supplied with" is yet another meaningless statement, a meaningless "truism". So what. Once the system is programmed with rules that implement meaning, the system has the implemented meaning, way beyond the pathetic statement. If the system is programmed with incorrect rules, the rows in the system will convey incorrect meaning. Only a complete, hysterical nutcase would say, "there is no meaning, the zeroes and ones, the alphabetic characters, have no meaning".
> I know you have no argument with that, because you know SQL doesn't
> distinguish columns by their *ascribed* meaning, but only by their
> *defined* properties. As far as SQL is concerned, the only difference
> between Name and SerialNumber are their properties. Human beings
> invent, and keep, the meanings.
Read the RM. It has meaning. The Relational Normal Form honours those meanings, and gives directions for implementing those meanings. Those of us who are not mentally crippled understand the RM, and implement meaning in our databases.
Deny that all you like, knock yourself out. It does not make the RM divorced from meaning, it does not make our databases with implemented meaning false, it just makes you a schizophrenic, totally unemployable wrt an implementation of any kind.
> You may think this is never no mind, a distinction with no difference.
> That's fine, but it doesn't make you right and me nuts. I agree with
> Dijkstra that every attempt to anthropomorphize the machine is fraught
> with error. You can skate on that ice, but sooner or later the
> metaphor will leak and reality bite.
> I have direct experience with mental illness and the destruction it wreaks
Long before suicide/homicide, yes, it wreaks destruction on everyone who has to deal with the person. That is why we do not permit the mentally ill to hold positions that require responsibility. By definition, as implemented in law in most civilised countries, the mentally ill are legally declared as not capable of being responsible, and thus we have to take responsibility for them. Blow their noses, wipe their asses, and keep them away from children and animals.
Cheers
Derek
James K. Lowden
Nov 23, 2019, 4:15:15 PM11/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 03:54:41 -0800 (PST)
afflicts the president is a matter of wide speculation. Other examples
abound.
> I have already explained that my use of the word is careful and
> considered. I do not use it as an insult.
One task of the writer is to choose words for their commonly understood
meaning -- in common, that is, between him and his audience -- and to
avoid freighted language carrying unintended meaning. The Humpty
Dumpty relief is not available to the rest of us.
+++
The funny thing is, for all your effort to disabuse me of my alleged
misunderstanding, you agree with me:
> > That meaning is up to the observer.
>
> Yes. And it can be placed upon the zeroes and ones, upon the Rs and
> the Ss. That is why we use real words, which have specific meaning,
> to implement (not merely and loosely "ascribe") the meaning of the
> words on the rows. That is why the rows are no longer the abstract
> relations that were very very useful to contemplate, and formed the
> intellectual foundation upon which we implemented the rows.
That's all I was trying to point out.
You make a useful distinction between the tuple and the row.
1. Of course the rows in our databases have the meaning we ascribe to
them. Yes, "ascribe", because the items in the database are more than
the "implemented" meaning captured in the rules that define them.
2. Of course the computer system that manages those databases does not
recognize that meaning; it recognizes, applies, only the rules
provided.
3. Of course, as tuples, they have no meaning except as mathematical
entities.
You seem to think that recognizing those facts inhibits successful
database design. I have never found that to be the case.
Regards,
--jkl
> That is why we do not permit the mentally ill to hold positions that
> require responsibility.
We do in the United States. Ted Turner has bipolar syndrome. What
> require responsibility.
afflicts the president is a matter of wide speculation. Other examples
abound.
> I have already explained that my use of the word is careful and
> considered. I do not use it as an insult.
meaning -- in common, that is, between him and his audience -- and to
avoid freighted language carrying unintended meaning. The Humpty
Dumpty relief is not available to the rest of us.
+++
The funny thing is, for all your effort to disabuse me of my alleged
misunderstanding, you agree with me:
> > That meaning is up to the observer.
>
> Yes. And it can be placed upon the zeroes and ones, upon the Rs and
> the Ss. That is why we use real words, which have specific meaning,
> to implement (not merely and loosely "ascribe") the meaning of the
> words on the rows. That is why the rows are no longer the abstract
> relations that were very very useful to contemplate, and formed the
> intellectual foundation upon which we implemented the rows.
You make a useful distinction between the tuple and the row.
1. Of course the rows in our databases have the meaning we ascribe to
them. Yes, "ascribe", because the items in the database are more than
the "implemented" meaning captured in the rules that define them.
2. Of course the computer system that manages those databases does not
recognize that meaning; it recognizes, applies, only the rules
provided.
3. Of course, as tuples, they have no meaning except as mathematical
entities.
You seem to think that recognizing those facts inhibits successful
database design. I have never found that to be the case.
Regards,
--jkl
Derek Ignatius Asirvadem
Nov 24, 2019, 12:13:36 AM11/24/19
to
James
> On Sunday, 24 November 2019 08:15:15 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 03:54:41 -0800 (PST)
> Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That is why we do not permit the mentally ill to hold positions that
> > require responsibility.
> We do in the United States. Ted Turner has bipolar syndrome.
That explains a lot.
> What
> afflicts the president is a matter of wide speculation.
Clear evidence that Americans have fallen into rebellion (“resistance”) and sedition. Very sad to watch. You even allow foreign forces to make terribly inappropriate declarations about the president. I would have them shot for treason. That is for the office of POTUS, nothing to do with the person of the president. Anarchy is rampant. Civil war is next. Very sad.
> Other examples
> abound.
Of course. Every single school shooter, every single spree killer.
> One task of the writer is to choose words for their commonly understood
> meaning -- in common, that is, between him and his audience -- and to
> avoid freighted language carrying unintended meaning.
Sure. That is precisely why educators consciously provide a definition of the term at the outset. To avoid all that. Any freight or baggage that one in the audience holds onto after that point, is his own, the educator no longer carries it. It has to do with responsibility, which the insane legally do not have, so they impose it on the educator.
> The funny thing is, for all your effort to disabuse me of my alleged
> misunderstanding, you agree with me:
Oh come on. If "agree with me" is meant in the overall sense, for either the RM, or for the topic of this thread, then definitely not. If that were true, this topic would not exist, and I would not spend time closing the gap. More accurately a chasm.
"agree with me" is true only for the fragment regarding the "ascribing meaning". And even that has taken five posts to achieve.
> That's all I was trying to point out.
Re that fragment.
But the thread, the topic, is about the statements, declarations you have made, about the RM, which are false (as detailed in my first post). That gap remains, the issue is not closed. I have detailed why your declarations are false, and explained precisely where the RM has meaning, and which of its directives instruct implementors to establish that meaning and how to carry it through to descendants. You have not responded to any of that.
If you retract these two absurdities, it will close the issue:
1.
"Nothing more" is hysterically false, and denial if you do know about the "more”. Ignorance if you don’t.
----
Your argument now boils down to:
nothing has meaning except for the meaning that we ascribe to it.
Based on the evidence thus far, you will not recognise how utterly idiotic that is.
/I had an interesting discussion with a female friend of mine, a corporate executive, re the propagandised "equality" of the sexes. My position was based on the biological reality, the many studies and stats. Her position was the propaganda, and she fought for it vigorously. The argument proceeded over three occasions, at least one hour each time. On the fourth occasion, she started off excitedly with "I've got it, if you take all the things that make us different away, then we are the same. Tadaa ! I won, I proved we are equal !" I said nothing.
Fifteen minutes later, as I was pouring wine, an introducing her to logic, the un-perverted operation of the intellect, she burst out lauging. Hysterically. She apologised. She had just figured out how ridiculous her statement was. That what makes each of us what we are, is precisely the things that make us different. That if we take those things away, we are left with zero. That zero equals zero./
You have reductionism engraved into your software. It might take you more than fifteen minutes.
> You make a useful distinction between the tuple and the row.
>
> 1. Of course the rows in our databases have the meaning we ascribe to
> them. Yes, "ascribe", because the items in the database are more than
> the "implemented" meaning captured in the rules that define them.
Ok. If you are crossing over into the realm of subjective reality, no. This is a technical discussion. Of course each person has a subjective reality, and is affected differently by any particular string of characters, eg. John Smith means terrible things to a person who feels inferior to white men; it feels exciting to someone who knows him (to find someone they know registered in a database somewhere).
Let's keep our discussion to the science, the objective reality. For the purposes of the database and anyone reading it, John Smith means one thing only. And its meaning is placed in the database only because we implemented the RM, which recognises meaning, and gives directives for implementing it. That is the crux of my topic, which you are avoiding, while discussing everything but.
> 2. Of course the computer system that manages those databases does not
> recognize that meaning; it recognizes, applies, only the rules
> provided.
Yes, for most of that. Re "recognises rules", no. As already explained, the digital camera and the computer are inanimate objects, quite absent human faculties. It the same way that it "does not recognise meaning", it cannot recognise anything. It does not recognise rules, it simply executes rules, that we as humans, holding meaning, have implemented. And therefore, to the un-perverted, the computer executes meaningfully.
The corollaries are relevant. Where the computer has been programmed by a human who holds meaning, but has little or no knowledge of the RM, the computer executes with substantially less meaning, and users will not be able to navigate the database easily. Where the computer has been programmed by a human who does not hold meaning, such as those who insist that every string is a meaningless random string, the computer executes as such, and the users hire an undamaged human to write their own separate database.
> 3. Of course, as tuples, they have no meaning except as mathematical
> entities.
True. For those with low IQ.
For those with an IQ of 90 or more, there is meaning in them there tuples. But that is not a subject that I will try to educate you about. I am limiting this thread to the meaning in the RM as it stands. Advanced subjects such as the meaning of Predicates in FOPC, which is the foundation of the RM, are way beyond this scope, only available to those who actually comprehend the RM fully. I am trying to deal with just that which the audience can understand; just those absurd declarations you have made.
> You seem to think that recognizing those facts inhibits successful
> database design.
I said nothing of the sort. If you:
a. reverse the order of your points, such that the natural hierarchy, for both understanding and implementation, is maintained [3][2][1]: the theory; the platform; the subject matter
b. refrain from slavishly removing the meaning from every English word as they occur
c. understand and implement the RM, which has specific meaning and carriage of it
one would have a successful Relational database design.
----
My post is about other facts, that you deny. Having seen some of your "databases", which do not comply with the RM (although you falsely claim that it does), and having seen many of your anti-Relational arguments, which is the usual Date & Darwen pig poop that is marketed as "relational", there is an awful lot about the RM that you evidently do not understand.
In violent contradiction of that, you do make grand declarations about the RM, what it does and does not do. Herein, I have taken issue with one of those false declarations. The evidence thus far is, you will neither retract the statement nor argue squarely for it. The best you can do is hide behind yet another abstraction, that meaning is an ascription.
Some years ago we argued about the evidenced fact that the RM is founded on the Hierarchic Paradigm, and your starting point was completely negative, the the RM was formed in isolation from Reality. I closed that argument through detailed evidence, but you did not have the humanity, the academic honesty, to admit any point. You live in the land of the Excluded Middle, maintaining the tension of opposites, never resolving anything. Potentialities (possible "realities"; multiverses; and other domiciles constructed of the smoke from pipe dreams) instead of Actualities (the single objective Reality).
I am grounded in Reality.
--
The Relational Model has MEANING, "theoreticians" excise MEANING. As painfully evidenced in this thread.
Cheers
Derek
> On Sunday, 24 November 2019 08:15:15 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 03:54:41 -0800 (PST)
> Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That is why we do not permit the mentally ill to hold positions that
> > require responsibility.
> We do in the United States. Ted Turner has bipolar syndrome.
> What
> afflicts the president is a matter of wide speculation.
> Other examples
> abound.
Of course. Every single school shooter, every single spree killer.
> One task of the writer is to choose words for their commonly understood
> meaning -- in common, that is, between him and his audience -- and to
> avoid freighted language carrying unintended meaning.
> The funny thing is, for all your effort to disabuse me of my alleged
> misunderstanding, you agree with me:
"agree with me" is true only for the fragment regarding the "ascribing meaning". And even that has taken five posts to achieve.
> That's all I was trying to point out.
But the thread, the topic, is about the statements, declarations you have made, about the RM, which are false (as detailed in my first post). That gap remains, the issue is not closed. I have detailed why your declarations are false, and explained precisely where the RM has meaning, and which of its directives instruct implementors to establish that meaning and how to carry it through to descendants. You have not responded to any of that.
If you retract these two absurdities, it will close the issue:
1.
> As far as RM is concerned, they're just tuples adhering
> to certain rules.
2.
> to certain rules.
> Let me say that again in a different way. To the DBMS -- which (we
> would like to think) implements RM -- name, year, and color are only
> strings we associate with attributes. "John Smith" isn't a person; it's
> a value taken from a domain and assigned to an attribute in a tuple.
> Only that and nothing more.
"Only that" is schizophrenic, due to the pathological denial of everything else that it means, and the maintenance of that denial.
> would like to think) implements RM -- name, year, and color are only
> strings we associate with attributes. "John Smith" isn't a person; it's
> a value taken from a domain and assigned to an attribute in a tuple.
> Only that and nothing more.
"Nothing more" is hysterically false, and denial if you do know about the "more”. Ignorance if you don’t.
----
Your argument now boils down to:
nothing has meaning except for the meaning that we ascribe to it.
Based on the evidence thus far, you will not recognise how utterly idiotic that is.
/I had an interesting discussion with a female friend of mine, a corporate executive, re the propagandised "equality" of the sexes. My position was based on the biological reality, the many studies and stats. Her position was the propaganda, and she fought for it vigorously. The argument proceeded over three occasions, at least one hour each time. On the fourth occasion, she started off excitedly with "I've got it, if you take all the things that make us different away, then we are the same. Tadaa ! I won, I proved we are equal !" I said nothing.
Fifteen minutes later, as I was pouring wine, an introducing her to logic, the un-perverted operation of the intellect, she burst out lauging. Hysterically. She apologised. She had just figured out how ridiculous her statement was. That what makes each of us what we are, is precisely the things that make us different. That if we take those things away, we are left with zero. That zero equals zero./
You have reductionism engraved into your software. It might take you more than fifteen minutes.
> You make a useful distinction between the tuple and the row.
>
> 1. Of course the rows in our databases have the meaning we ascribe to
> them. Yes, "ascribe", because the items in the database are more than
> the "implemented" meaning captured in the rules that define them.
Let's keep our discussion to the science, the objective reality. For the purposes of the database and anyone reading it, John Smith means one thing only. And its meaning is placed in the database only because we implemented the RM, which recognises meaning, and gives directives for implementing it. That is the crux of my topic, which you are avoiding, while discussing everything but.
> 2. Of course the computer system that manages those databases does not
> recognize that meaning; it recognizes, applies, only the rules
> provided.
The corollaries are relevant. Where the computer has been programmed by a human who holds meaning, but has little or no knowledge of the RM, the computer executes with substantially less meaning, and users will not be able to navigate the database easily. Where the computer has been programmed by a human who does not hold meaning, such as those who insist that every string is a meaningless random string, the computer executes as such, and the users hire an undamaged human to write their own separate database.
> 3. Of course, as tuples, they have no meaning except as mathematical
> entities.
For those with an IQ of 90 or more, there is meaning in them there tuples. But that is not a subject that I will try to educate you about. I am limiting this thread to the meaning in the RM as it stands. Advanced subjects such as the meaning of Predicates in FOPC, which is the foundation of the RM, are way beyond this scope, only available to those who actually comprehend the RM fully. I am trying to deal with just that which the audience can understand; just those absurd declarations you have made.
> You seem to think that recognizing those facts inhibits successful
> database design.
a. reverse the order of your points, such that the natural hierarchy, for both understanding and implementation, is maintained [3][2][1]: the theory; the platform; the subject matter
b. refrain from slavishly removing the meaning from every English word as they occur
c. understand and implement the RM, which has specific meaning and carriage of it
one would have a successful Relational database design.
----
My post is about other facts, that you deny. Having seen some of your "databases", which do not comply with the RM (although you falsely claim that it does), and having seen many of your anti-Relational arguments, which is the usual Date & Darwen pig poop that is marketed as "relational", there is an awful lot about the RM that you evidently do not understand.
In violent contradiction of that, you do make grand declarations about the RM, what it does and does not do. Herein, I have taken issue with one of those false declarations. The evidence thus far is, you will neither retract the statement nor argue squarely for it. The best you can do is hide behind yet another abstraction, that meaning is an ascription.
Some years ago we argued about the evidenced fact that the RM is founded on the Hierarchic Paradigm, and your starting point was completely negative, the the RM was formed in isolation from Reality. I closed that argument through detailed evidence, but you did not have the humanity, the academic honesty, to admit any point. You live in the land of the Excluded Middle, maintaining the tension of opposites, never resolving anything. Potentialities (possible "realities"; multiverses; and other domiciles constructed of the smoke from pipe dreams) instead of Actualities (the single objective Reality).
I am grounded in Reality.
--
The Relational Model has MEANING, "theoreticians" excise MEANING. As painfully evidenced in this thread.
Cheers
Derek
0 new messages