Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Bob Badour wrote:
//With all due respect, your use of "bidimensionality" is nonsense. You

claim to use it to refer to the physical level of discourse but then
you
use it when referring directly to logical entities.//
Your statement is incorrect. I explained the use of bidimensionality
to state that the physical representation of a relvar (in current SQL
implementation) is necessarily bidimensional at run time. Tell me
where I have declared that it's bidimensional a logical level?

//You claim that physical memories are multidimensional; however, on
the
one occasion I recall anyone using a computational model with multiple
dimensions of memories, it was used in the constructive proof that a
single-tape turing machine is just as expressive as a multiple-tape
turing machine.//
It is not a claim it's a fact. 64 bit RAM architectures use an
adressing scheme identifying adresses through 3 coordinates
BlockAddress/ColumnAddress/RowAddress. Which makes your *recalling*
essentially irrelevant.

//Segmented memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory.
Virtual memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory.
Paged memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory.//
This is high level segmentation is irrelevant. I am speaking low
level.

// In the computational models people will find familiar, memory uses a

linear address space: it has one dimension generally expressed as an
unsigned integer defined in some large range. That property is a
property of the physical address space and not a property of the data
stored in the memory.

In the computational models people will find familiar, memory uses a
linear address space: it has one dimension generally expressed as an
unsigned integer defined in some large range. That property is a
property of the physical address space and not a property of the data
stored in the memory.
//
Speaking about computational model is irrelevant. Your comment made me
however understand where the misunderstanding comes from. You are
ignoring the relative nature of hexadecimal adress retrieval. Most
addresses are computed and are a result of a absolute direct
extraction. Current RAM use 2 or 3 coordinates to identify faster
addresses on relatively to the other. The adressing scheme is
referential for computing that has been existing since VSAM. If you
suppose Linear means monodimensional and that adresses are extracted
directly, you are wrong.

// If you plan to use an unfamiliar computational model, you will have
to
fully define that computational model or nobody will have a clue what
you are talking about.// No need to comment on that see response
above.

Wont comment on the rest no need.

// For good reason. The statements made absolutely no sense even after
you
tried to clarify them.//
Do you understand better now?

// J M Davitt asked once for clarification indicating you were not
communicating well and once pointed out that your style of quoting
interferes with communication. I don't recall him expressing any
confidence in his comprehension of what you wrote.//
Here's to refresh your selective memory.

JMDavitt first asked a question to warn me I was not communicating
clearly enough but he adressed directly the issue I was getting at.

//Clarification please: are you saying that direct image
implementations
are two dimensional because all the columns are adjacent to each other
in a row? (If so, you're writing a very different language than the
readers of your posts are reading.) //

I responded commenting onto adjacency and asking new questions to try
to direct a more productive discussion..

//Not only and the fact that they are adjacent is not really the issue
but this description seems closer to what I mean. Thank you very much
for helping a better formulation of the issue. (I may have troubles
expressing the concept). This thread seems to be taking off after all.

What is your insight on that.? Can OO in-memory mechanisms be helpful
on that matter? Most people here seem to believe the opposite. //

JMDavitt did not explicitely express that he had a comprehension of
issues at hand he just aked the right question about a subject with
delimited scope which makes the triggering argument having sense. This
is why I told you at several occasions that you miss the point (in all
respect).

// I long ago added Alvin to my twit-filter. I forget whether that was
due
to a lack of intellectual honesty on his part or worse. That he might
pretend to make sense of what you wrote does not make it any more
sensible.//
I do not know any people accustomed to this board and I do not have any
preconceived idea about what they are or say. I just try to exchange
with sincerity and respect. Alvin or you are no exceptions. I conceive
that disagreeing with them on a specific matter as being an potential
opportunity to learn something. This process may not be as practical
as puting people on twit filter when they disagree with me but it is
rewarding. My guess is I will probably be next on your twit filter
and your next thread reference as being intellectualy dishonnest.

// You have not established that anyone really made sense of what you
wrote. One person tried to rephrase what you wrote into something he
considered sensible, and he asked you for clarification at that time.
The other person is just a fool. Fools talk nonsense all the time.//
You are trying to establish nonsense on false assumptions and if
necessary you disqualify as *foolish* or *nonsensical* anything that
does not fit your perception of right and wrong.

*Fool*, *twit filter*, *nonsense* *lack of intellectual honnesty* -->
Is that your witchhunt arsenal to defend your positions when people
disagree with you and when you can not prove they are wrong. This
attitude is scary and I do mean that in a friendly manner.

// Nothing is really relevant to nonsense. I am trying to give you an
opportunity to rephrase what you are trying to communicate into
something sensible. You keep refusing and insisting that your prior
gibberish should make sense to people. Clearly, it does not.//
Sorry about that but I can not give more clarifications than I already
did to prove my good faith.

// I disagree. Confusing a property of a physical address space with a
property of a logical entity is nonsense. When I put a potato into
boiling water, I don't conclude that the boiling point of potatos is
100
degrees celsius nor do I conclude it is a property of cooked potatos
as
opposed to potatos in general.//
I am not confusing anything you are. So you use potatoes as an analogy
to explain bidimensionality of a relvar. It is totally irrelevant as
were your previous comment.

// Yet, having put a logical structure into a linear memory, you
expressed
a property of the linear memory as a property of the logical
structure.
Don't do that. It's nonsense even if you say it only applies to the
implementation of the logical structure in the physical address
space.//
No that would be totally silly. These are conclusions you are making
I stated that the SQL *physical* implementation on *current* DBMS
systems in necessarily bidimensional at run time because of the
addressing scheme used is a limiting factor to better representation
BUT I have never stated anywhere that a relvar is bidimensional. The
latest part of the sentence is your interpretation. I suspect you
either misunderstood or you are making a confusion between a relvar and
its possible in memory representation.

I know you are trying to help but it seems to me you are

<< You and I obviously use different definitions for "clearly". You
clearly
and repeatedly used "bidimensionality" in reference to an SQL table.>>
This statement is incorrect. At several occasions, I explicitely
refered to current *physical* implementations of SQL Tables in main
commercial products I named (ORACLE, DB2, SQL Server). A SQL table can
not be logically bidimensional.

// I simply repeated your claim, and I am trying to give you the
benefit of
the doubt. Thus far, I have assumed the problems with communication
stemmed from your use of a foreign language, and I am trying to give
you
the opportunity to overcome that impediment.//
Yes and I am grateful for that. Thank you for your help.

// I am not sure how else you want me to express that something you
write
makes no sense. While I understand it will require much more work from

you to discover or look up the correct english word for what you are
trying to communicate, making up gibberish wastes time while defeating

your purpose.// That's your opinion. I will keep it in mind.

Bob Badour wrote:
Cimode wrote:

Bob Badour,

You declared talking about the posting I previously made

// instance, he keeps referring to bidimensionality of a physical
representation of a row when that is basically meaningless to the
anglophones according to the definitions of the terms he uses, and he
has made absolutely no effort to try to define the terms he is
using.//

At several occasions in the thread, I gave explicit (which makes them
look *wordy* according to your communication standard) explanations and
even reused you own examples to point out the fundamental issue at
stake which is in-memory representation of relvars and what kind of OO
mechanisms could help improving the situation. But you got the nerve
indicating that I make no effort to define them!

With all due respect, your use of "bidimensionality" is nonsense. You
claim to use it to refer to the physical level of discourse but then you
use it when referring directly to logical entities.

You claim that physical memories are multidimensional; however, on the
one occasion I recall anyone using a computational model with multiple
dimensions of memories, it was used in the constructive proof that a
single-tape turing machine is just as expressive as a multiple-tape
turing machine.

Segmented memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory.
Virtual memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory.
Paged memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory.

In the computational models people will find familiar, memory uses a
linear address space: it has one dimension generally expressed as an
unsigned integer defined in some large range. That property is a
property of the physical address space and not a property of the data
stored in the memory.

If you plan to use an unfamiliar computational model, you will have to
fully define that computational model or nobody will have a clue what
you are talking about.

To give yourself some indication of why anglophones cannot understand
you when you use the word "bidimensionality" while flitting between the
logical and the physical, I suggest you search for the following terms
on google including the quotation marks for each.

"virtual memory"
"segmented memory"
"linear memory"
"bidimensional memory"

While I get tens of thousands of hits or more for the first two, I get a
total of 4 hits for the last one. Two of those hits relate to
psychology. One of those hits defines a computational model for the
study of evolution. The remaining hit, which is only available in the
cache, appears in the description of a speech given once about a year
ago on a topic of digital image processing related to cryptography.


What exact form of definition may help then (please answer this
particular question)?

If you want to use a computational model using a non-linear address
space, you will have to fully define the computational model.


You pointed out at several occasions that these
statement were nonsense?

For good reason. The statements made absolutely no sense even after you
tried to clarify them.


At least 2 people on this thread have made
sense and addressed the main issue asking relevant questions ( J M
Davitt and Alvin Ryder).

J M Davitt asked once for clarification indicating you were not
communicating well and once pointed out that your style of quoting
interferes with communication. I don't recall him expressing any
confidence in his comprehension of what you wrote.

I long ago added Alvin to my twit-filter. I forget whether that was due
to a lack of intellectual honesty on his part or worse. That he might
pretend to make sense of what you wrote does not make it any more sensible.


As nonsense can not be understood by anybody because it lacks
coherence, the logic behind you declaring that my comments are being
nonsense is basically flawed.

You have not established that anyone really made sense of what you
wrote. One person tried to rephrase what you wrote into something he
considered sensible, and he asked you for clarification at that time.
The other person is just a fool. Fools talk nonsense all the time.


I have at several occasions pointed out that the points you made were
irrelevant to the objective of this thread but you keep bringing back
the subject off track and blaming me for being repetitive.

Nothing is really relevant to nonsense. I am trying to give you an
opportunity to rephrase what you are trying to communicate into
something sensible. You keep refusing and insisting that your prior
gibberish should make sense to people. Clearly, it does not.


//I asked him point blank why he thought the linearity of the address
space had any bearing on the dimensionality of the table, and he
ignored
the question. I don't think he understands enough english to
participate
effectively.//
My grasp of english is far from being perfect (I know that) but it is
sufficient to point out that the question you adressed is irrelevant.

I disagree. Confusing a property of a physical address space with a
property of a logical entity is nonsense. When I put a potato into
boiling water, I don't conclude that the boiling point of potatos is 100
degrees celsius nor do I conclude it is a property of cooked potatos as
opposed to potatos in general.

Yet, having put a logical structure into a linear memory, you expressed
a property of the linear memory as a property of the logical structure.
Don't do that. It's nonsense even if you say it only applies to the
implementation of the logical structure in the physical address space.


Answer is this last question is obviously no. How can you ask this
question when I clearly indicated that physical layer does not define
logical deifnition of an R Table.

You and I obviously use different definitions for "clearly". You clearly
and repeatedly used "bidimensionality" in reference to an SQL table.


You even indicated rightfully to vc
that I am not trying to redefine a logical model.

I simply repeated your claim, and I am trying to give you the benefit of
the doubt. Thus far, I have assumed the problems with communication
stemmed from your use of a foreign language, and I am trying to give you
the opportunity to overcome that impediment.


What you believe is
the question I have adressed would have indicated the opposite.

It wasn't a yes or no question. You seem to be claiming that I asked a
loaded question; however, I think most of the knowledgeable english
speaking people will find the question very reasonable given your
previous statements.

Are you saying you want to rephrase what you wrote previously such that
you no longer express the properties of the physical memory as
properties of the logical entity?


Again, my belief is the fact that physical addressing scheme (be it
linear or bidimensional) has a limiting effect onto representating and
therefore manipulating adequately a relvar which is totally different
from what you think I am stating.

I hope this makes more sense.

I am not sure why you think that. I suggest you consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Multi-tape_machines

I likewise suggest you consider that the various classes of automata can
accept the same languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory#Classes_of_automata


//His posts are extremely wordy and nonsensical. If he had a better
grasp
of the language, I think he would communicate more succinctly and make

more sense.//

I will be more succint from now on.

// Instead of trying to find better (ie. accurate and succinct)
vocabulary,
he just keeps repeating the nonsense.//
I have counted the word *nonsense* and the adjective *nonsensical* at
least 6 times in your comments and you blame me being repetitive...

While I initially believed you meant *nonsense* as a synonym to *no
making any sense* and that it was due to my lack of english
proficiency, your hastiness to disqualify anything that does not fit
your perception of what is and what is not relevant makes this term a
blackbox term in which you try to put people's comments and intentions.

Therefore, I would ask you to stop using it as it traduces a lack of
respect for the efforts I am putting into trying to exchange with you.

I am not sure how else you want me to express that something you write
makes no sense. While I understand it will require much more work from
you to discover or look up the correct english word for what you are
trying to communicate, making up gibberish wastes time while defeating
your purpose.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
    ... Virtual memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory. ... Why would you consider a level below the computational model of the CPU? ... linear address space: it has one dimension generally expressed as an ... I have a better idea why you seem incapable to communicate. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
    ... Bidimensional adressing scheme are clearly based on ... Virtual memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory. ... Why would you consider a level below the computational model of the CPU? ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
    ... Segmented memory is not the same as two-dimensional memory. ... To give yourself some indication of why anglophones cannot understand you when you use the word "bidimensionality" while flitting between the logical and the physical, I suggest you search for the following terms on google including the quotation marks for each. ... J M Davitt asked once for clarification indicating you were not communicating well and once pointed out that your style of quoting interferes with communication. ... Fools talk nonsense all the time. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
    ... If you want to discuss a specific computational model, ... memory, the address space is linear. ... I call any addressing scheme requiring single ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
    ... If you want to discuss a specific computational model, you will have to provide some sensible definition of that model. ... Even with segmented memory, the address space is linear. ... Are you suggesting that current memory architectures are non-segmented, non-virtual, non-paged, non-linear architectures? ...
    (comp.databases.theory)