7 ms·

What precisely am I confused about? You are linking to the 1NF wikipedia page section on atomicity. Are you alleging that I am confused about atomicity? Beca

by ucee054 14y ago

What precisely am I confused about? You are linking to the 1NF wikipedia page section on atomicity. Are you alleging that I am confused about atomicity? Because I said strings and dates are not atomic. Here is your link: "A character string would seem not to be atomic, as the RDBMS typically provides operators to decompose it into substrings." By the way, dates can also be decomposed, into years, months, days, hours, minutes etc Oopsie, it appears that you're the one who's confused.

TheZenPsycho 14y ago
Anyone can click on that link and read it. You only make a fool of yourself by willfully failing to understand what is written there.
- ucee054 14y ago
  Well no, you make a fool out of yourself by reading something that isn't there. Instead of resorting to ad-hominems, you could have actually explained what I am supposed to be confused about, and what I am supposed to have "understood" from the page which was saying exactly the same as what I was saying. Or you could have tried to tackle the fact that we need NULLs and other "sins against Pascal", which was the point of my argument. You failed to do both. I conclude that you got nuthin'
  - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
    So you are saying that you insist that the correct definition of "atomic" is the one that is completely useless (by defining strings and dates as non atomic), and by extension makes the whole of the relational model useless? Uhhh. okay. You can have that victory I guess. pats your head.
    - skore 14y ago
      Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused', that he is arguing from authority, ignoring mathematical principles, that he is hysterical, that he doesn't read his own links, that he is making a fool of himself by not understanding what he has linked to himself. Up to this point, you don't use a single word to actually provide any substance at all to your argument. Then, finally, you actually do address one of his points in the most dismissive and condescending way I have seen all day. Kudos, I guess. No substance and all hot air. Somewhere halfway through your silly dance, irony ate its own hat.
      - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
        huh? Who are you? have you made me a project? ooh! that's so cute! Well I could just wave off your weird outburst here but I guess out of fairness I'll address you point for point. > Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused' Recurring? Well I did say he was deeply confused. once, up thread. I suppose the part where I supposedly say "my point is right" is implied by the fact that this is an argument, and I am the person arguing my point- But I can't find where I say that explicitly, out loud. That would kind of be weird. Have I said this somewhere else? > that he is arguing from authority, ignoring mathematical principles, that he is hysterical. OH! Are you referring to where I was talking about mathematical principles? I suppose one way of looking at that was me saying something about his argument. From my point of view I was just talking about a subject though. > that he doesn't read his own links, it was my link, and it was him trying to make a point about me reading my own link. Of course I did read my own link. the problem we were having is that he skimmed it, found the one out of context quote that would support his own point, and pulled that out on display. This seems kind of ridiculous to me, because anyone can click in, and look to see that they're quotes pulled out of context in such a way as to reverse their intended meaning, and he's fooling nobody by doing that. Well, maybe he's fooled you. > that he is making a fool of himself by not understanding what he has linked to himself. it was my link and and trying to lie about a source that is RIGHT THERE, and anyone can look at is really kind of crazy. > Up to this point, you don't use a single word to actually provide any substance at all to your argument. Up until that point there was not a single word that seriously challenged my claims, either. > Then, finally, you actually do address one of his points in the most dismissive and condescending way I have seen all day. Well, because it came at the end of a back of forth involving me trying to get him to read something that addressed his point, and so at the end, well, it's condescending because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid to begin with so as to be useless. So, at this point I have to just accept that he is irredeemably ridiculous and let him just have that victory if he wants it. > Kudos, I guess. No substance and all hot air. Somewhere halfway through your silly dance, irony ate its own hat Why do you care so much?
        14y ago
    - ucee054 14y ago
      "because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid to begin with so as to be useless." No, I was saying that your (and Fabian Pascal's) definition of a relational database is absurd and stupid and useless. Your definition seems to be a server that enforces the relational model whereas EF Codd's definition seems to be something that enables the relational model. EF Codd's definition seems quite good. It also seems to include IBM's original SQL system and Ingres and everything similar. And your (and Pascal's and Date's) response seems to be a rather dishonest attempt to rewrite history and to change what relational means in order to make your stupid, stupid ideas work, so you can continue to whinge about SQL and NULLs. It would be a lot easier just to learn to live with the fact that people need NULLs.

by ucee054 14y ago

TheZenPsycho 14y ago

Anyone can click on that link and read it. You only make a fool of yourself by willfully failing to understand what is written there.

ucee054 14y ago
Well no, you make a fool out of yourself by reading something that isn't there. Instead of resorting to ad-hominems, you could have actually explained what I am supposed to be confused about, and what I am supposed to have "understood" from the page which was saying exactly the same as what I was saying. Or you could have tried to tackle the fact that we need NULLs and other "sins against Pascal", which was the point of my argument. You failed to do both. I conclude that you got nuthin'
- TheZenPsycho 14y ago
  So you are saying that you insist that the correct definition of "atomic" is the one that is completely useless (by defining strings and dates as non atomic), and by extension makes the whole of the relational model useless? Uhhh. okay. You can have that victory I guess. pats your head.
  - skore 14y ago
    Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused', that he is arguing from authority, ignoring mathematical principles, that he is hysterical, that he doesn't read his own links, that he is making a fool of himself by not understanding what he has linked to himself. Up to this point, you don't use a single word to actually provide any substance at all to your argument. Then, finally, you actually do address one of his points in the most dismissive and condescending way I have seen all day. Kudos, I guess. No substance and all hot air. Somewhere halfway through your silly dance, irony ate its own hat.
    - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
      huh? Who are you? have you made me a project? ooh! that's so cute! Well I could just wave off your weird outburst here but I guess out of fairness I'll address you point for point. > Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused' Recurring? Well I did say he was deeply confused. once, up thread. I suppose the part where I supposedly say "my point is right" is implied by the fact that this is an argument, and I am the person arguing my point- But I can't find where I say that explicitly, out loud. That would kind of be weird. Have I said this somewhere else? > that he is arguing from authority, ignoring mathematical principles, that he is hysterical. OH! Are you referring to where I was talking about mathematical principles? I suppose one way of looking at that was me saying something about his argument. From my point of view I was just talking about a subject though. > that he doesn't read his own links, it was my link, and it was him trying to make a point about me reading my own link. Of course I did read my own link. the problem we were having is that he skimmed it, found the one out of context quote that would support his own point, and pulled that out on display. This seems kind of ridiculous to me, because anyone can click in, and look to see that they're quotes pulled out of context in such a way as to reverse their intended meaning, and he's fooling nobody by doing that. Well, maybe he's fooled you. > that he is making a fool of himself by not understanding what he has linked to himself. it was my link and and trying to lie about a source that is RIGHT THERE, and anyone can look at is really kind of crazy. > Up to this point, you don't use a single word to actually provide any substance at all to your argument. Up until that point there was not a single word that seriously challenged my claims, either. > Then, finally, you actually do address one of his points in the most dismissive and condescending way I have seen all day. Well, because it came at the end of a back of forth involving me trying to get him to read something that addressed his point, and so at the end, well, it's condescending because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid to begin with so as to be useless. So, at this point I have to just accept that he is irredeemably ridiculous and let him just have that victory if he wants it. > Kudos, I guess. No substance and all hot air. Somewhere halfway through your silly dance, irony ate its own hat Why do you care so much?
      - 14y ago
  - ucee054 14y ago
    "because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid to begin with so as to be useless." No, I was saying that your (and Fabian Pascal's) definition of a relational database is absurd and stupid and useless. Your definition seems to be a server that enforces the relational model whereas EF Codd's definition seems to be something that enables the relational model. EF Codd's definition seems quite good. It also seems to include IBM's original SQL system and Ingres and everything similar. And your (and Pascal's and Date's) response seems to be a rather dishonest attempt to rewrite history and to change what relational means in order to make your stupid, stupid ideas work, so you can continue to whinge about SQL and NULLs. It would be a lot easier just to learn to live with the fact that people need NULLs.