Jump to content

MySQL Extra Tables vs Type Field


jimmyoneshot

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I disagree.

 

To design something, you need to know how it works, why it works, and when it's going to stop working.

 

To use something, you only need to know a subset of those three things -- and "why" isn't one of them, even the limitations are optional.

 

I don't need to know how a calculator gets its power, or why it's solar vs. battery-operated, in order to use it.  I don't need to know what things it can't calculate.  I just need to know that "+" means "addition".

 

Sure, knowing these things is a nice bonus, but nothing more.  This bonus knowledge has little effect on 5x5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains:

 

Both manufacturer and user must know arithmetic.

 

A calculator manufacturer ignorant of arithmetic is doomed to fail.

 

A calculator user ignorant of arithmetic is doomed to fail.

 

The same thing for DBMS (just substitute the word "DBMS" for the word "calculator"; and the word "relational theory" for "arithmetic")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, learn the language.  I am most definitely "clairvoyant".  Can't you see what the word actually means?  It's not hard.

 

Welcome to your theory.  Have you "discovered" erline tables yet?  Or are you still working on theorizing how one would build a search engine that could find terms by phoenetic spelling? 

 

You theory doesn't work.  At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did.  with all of your theory, you don't know what erline tables are, and you don't know what clairvoyant means.

 

So your way of doing things has failed you in these ways.  Hence, your "theory" doesn't work at all.

 

We can't have a fruitful discussion, because you lack the practical ability to apply yourself to said conversation in any useful way..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not following up on arguments made by fellow commenters is the problem.  Such things are only irrelevant to you because you never explored them enough to understand them.  If you don't understand the arguments being made against you, and you don't take the time to learn, then you're done; plain and simple. 

 

And that, is most definitely your fault.  You are incapable of learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fenway

A calculator user ignorant of arithmetic is doomed to fail.

That is a baseless statement.

 

Really?

 

Now what if the user is given a defective calculator, one that does 2 + 2 = 5.

 

Now, since he is ignorant of theory, of arithmetic, he accepts what the calculator says: 2 + 2 = 5.

 

What do you call that? Is not that "doomed to fail?"

 

Claiming that it is not is just absurd considering that we are IT professionals here: practitioners of the direct effects of science - technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are incapable of learning.

 

To a certain extent, that is true.

 

I will never learn things and claims that are absurd. Such as the claim that "theory has no place in the real world."

 

The story of erline tables too I am incapable of learning. I found a copy about it at a local library - the book was for disposal. No wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, if you can't discerne knowlege from an argument, then you're done.  You've given up long ago.  If all you see is absurdity, then you're so far away from seeing what's there, that no one can show it to you; and you'll never see it.  Pittiful really.  Erline tables are used every day, every second, in hundreds of industries.  And you're dismissing it as absurd. 

 

You've got absolutely zero to contribute beyond your very first comment -- because you haven't gained any knowledge nor understanding nor even perspective of the other arguments in the discussion.  So you're nothing more than a one-trick pony, reiterating the same comment 161 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fenway

A calculator user ignorant of arithmetic is doomed to fail.

That is a baseless statement.

 

Really?

 

Now what if the user is given a defective calculator, one that does 2 + 2 = 5.

 

Now, since he is ignorant of theory, of arithmetic, he accepts what the calculator says: 2 + 2 = 5.

 

What do you call that? Is not that "doomed to fail?"

 

Claiming that it is not is just absurd considering that we are IT professionals here: practitioners of the direct effects of science - technology.

No -- I call that a defective calculator.  And it's going to be pretty obvious once I try to use its results that it's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No -- I call that a defective calculator.  And it's going to be pretty obvious once I try to use its results that it's wrong.

Yes. It is a defective calculator.

 

And how exactly will it be "pretty obvious"?

How will you exactly know when "its results [are] wrong"?

 

Only when you know arithmetic. Only when you know theory.

 

Nobody can deny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the loop that you're in?  All because you don't understand the words "results" and "obvious".

 

You don't put any effort into understanding what you're reading.  And hence, you're useless in a conversation.  You've just repeated one of your former posts.

 

You're a bot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can always call me names; or indulge in your hallucinations; or use non-relevant facts about my posts.

 

You can always do those things.

 

If I had repeated my posts, that is because the conversation necessitates it. Because I am trying to keep a conversation/discussion by replying relevant posts.

 

But you cannot deny the fact that I just stated in my most previous post, namely:

 

In order to determine that a calculator (or DBMS for that matter) is _basically defective_, you must know arithmetic (or Relational Theory for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I, and any sane person can, and has done so.  I don't need to know that the calculator is broken, miscoded, or defective.  I only need to know that the tool I used to accomplish a job produced a poor-quality result.  The job didn't get done. That's enough for me to blame all of my tools and to go buy new tools.

 

If the house collapses because the nails degraded, I don't need to know if they rusted, crumbled, corroded, or broke.  I just need to not use those nails again.

 

This is what I mean when I say that you don't think things through.  I don't need to know that 2+2 != 5.  I just need to know that my wallet is empty, or that the house crumbled.  I need to know that using my tool was a bad idea, and then get a different tool next time.  The second calculator won't likely fail.

 

And if it does, then I'll very quickly say that calculators aren't proper tools, and I'll go back to my prior way of doing things.

 

Welcome to the computer age.  A great many people abandonned it.  That's why.

 

But again, you don't follow through on completely thoughts.

 

And, by the way, I never called you a name.  I called you a bot.  That's an accusation, not a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I, and any sane person can, and has done so.  I don't need to know that the calculator is broken, miscoded, or defective.  I only need to know that the tool I used to accomplish a job produced a poor-quality result.  The job didn't get done. That's enough for me to blame all of my tools and to go buy new tools.

 

If the house collapses because the nails degraded, I don't need to know if they rusted, crumbled, corroded, or broke.  I just need to not use those nails again.

 

This is what I mean when I say that you don't think things through.  I don't need to know that 2+2 != 5.  I just need to know that my wallet is empty, or that the house crumbled.  I need to know that using my tool was a bad idea, and then get a different tool next time.  The second calculator won't likely fail.

 

And if it does, then I'll very quickly say that calculators aren't proper tools, and I'll go back to my prior way of doing things.

 

Welcome to the computer age.  A great many people abandonned it.  That's why.

 

But again, you don't follow through on completely thoughts.

 

And, by the way, I never called you a name.  I called you a bot.  That's an accusation, not a name.

The most nonsensical post I've read hitherto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, you duplicated it for absolutely no apparent reason.  Like I said, you can't read, and you're incapable of understanding what's presented to you.  But it's evident that you've never actually been responsible for someone else's project for conception through completion and further through maintenance and continuation.  So it's not suprising that you've got no practical application logic to your reasoning. 

 

It also makes sense that the only comments you can make are vague and sweeping rejections of entire posts.  Like I said, Aliza is about as coherent as you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to put my moderator hat on here, folks -- let's keep the name-calling to the schoolyards, not the forums.[quote author=ebmigue

 

link=topic=338788.msg1600394#msg1600394 date=1311628842]

No -- I call that a defective calculator.  And it's going to be pretty obvious once I try to use its results that it's wrong.

Yes. It is a defective calculator.

 

And how exactly will it be "pretty obvious"?

How will you exactly know when "its results [are] wrong"?

 

Only when you know arithmetic. Only when you know theory.

 

Nobody can deny that.

Sure -- I can deny that, rather easily.

 

Let's pretend I use my faulty calculator unknowingly, and use 2+2=5 in my "tool".  Sooner or later, something bad will happen, and it will be plainly obvious.  It won't be a direct result of theory, but rather an empirical observation that just isn't right, or is inconsistent with previous outcomes, or someone else's outcome.

 

Now, since calculators are quite common instruments, I can just get another one -- or ask someone else -- and it will be immediately apparent that my device is broken.  Get a new one, and ta-da -- everything works again.  See?  No need for a theoretical groundwork.

 

Since we're all going around in circles here, I'll give you the option of responding -- and hopefully shedding some new light on this discussion -- before I lock this thread in the hopes of dousing the flame war that has/will ensue/d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure -- I can deny that, rather easily.

No you cannot. And I will show to you why you cannot and did not actually.

 

Let's pretend I use my faulty calculator unknowingly, and use 2+2=5 in my "tool".  Sooner or later, something bad will happen, and it will be plainly obvious. 

Why was it obvious?

Because of arithmetic's axioms: theory.

Its being obvious is a direct acknowledgement of the person in question that he is knowledgeable about arithmetic.

 

It won't be a direct result of theory, but rather an empirical observation that just isn't right, or is inconsistent with previous outcomes, or someone else's outcome.

Are you saying now that arithmetic is empirical? Your argument uses other people's opinions on the (in)correctness of 2 + 2 = 5.

 

Granted that: why did other people know that 2 + 2 = 5 isn't right?  Why were they able to say that it is incorrect, "is inconsistent w/ previous outcomes, or someone else's outcome"?

 

Because of arithmetic's axioms: theory. Because of society's knowledge about arithmetic.

 

Now, since calculators are quite common instruments, I can just get another one -- or ask someone else -- and it will be immediately apparent that my device is broken. 

The abundance of calculators has nothing to do w/ its being broken or not; nor w/ the user's knowledge about arithmetic.

 

If you do get a non-broken one, one that does 2 + 2 right -- how did you know it?

 

Because you knew arithmetic in the first place.

 

Get a new one, and ta-da -- everything works again.  See?  No need for a theoretical groundwork.

No, "ta-da" is not that easy.

 

How will you know that the new one you acquired will not give you the same problems? That "everything works again"?

 

You cannot know it, unless you are acquainted w/ knowledge on arithmetic.

 

You cannot deny that.

 

Since we're all going around in circles here, I'll give you the option of responding -- and hopefully shedding some new light on this discussion -- before I lock this thread in the hopes of dousing the flame war that has/will ensue/d.

No, my posts are not going on circles. And I can assure you that it is not my intention to flame anyone.

If I did, there were asking for it. But I sincerely apologise for it in any case.

 

Objectively speaking:

 

Locking this thread will not subvert the fact that knowledge in arithmetic is necessary before one can reliably and effectively use calculators.

 

Subjectively speaking:

IMO, The same goes with relational DBMSs (calculators) and Relational Theory (arithmetic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you're not listening at all.  He's not using arithmetic at all.  His house fell apart.  No axioms.  Totally obvious.  The house fell. 

 

Your initial point is invalid, therefore your entire follow-up is meaningless.  You can't argue by saying "you cannot deny that".  That just means that you cannot consider anything.  That makes you ignorant in the true meaning of the word -- you're ignoring everyone else.

 

You've managed to say absolutely nothing, nor to give any counter examples to those given.  That makes all of your posts useless to readers. 

 

So here's your last chance.

 

I place a nail in some wood.  I grab by shoe.  I hit the nail with my shoe.  Nothing happens.  I get a hammer.  I swing my hammer at a nail.  I hit the nail on the head.  The hammer breaks.  I blame the hammer.  I grab a second hammer.  I swing the hammer.  The hammer breaks.  I grab a third hammer.  I swing the hammer.  The hammer works.  The nail is embedded in the wood.  I move on with my life.

 

Absolutely zero effort was spent discerning why my shoe didn't work, nor why the first two hammers broke.  It could have been anything.  The hammers could have been defective.  I may have been swinging them incorrectly.  It didn't matter.  I didn't understand anything about hammers, nor about shoes, nor about nails, nor about the strength of the wood.  I just grabbed the next object in line and used it.  Eventually, I won the day.

 

Grabbing a bigger hammer is the a valid technique.  And it requires zero theory of any kind.

 

So, now it's your turn.  Why don't you discuss my hammer story.  Directly, not vaguely, and not dimissingly.  Because it's a real story.  And it occured last weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grabbing a bigger hammer is the a valid technique.

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

If we substitute "bigger" w/ "theoretically sound" and "hammer" w/ "DBMS", then we are in agreement.

 

And it requires zero theory of any kind.

No I do not agree.

 

When you recognize that something is "bigger than something", literally, the sense of sight would suffice.

 

But for DBMSes it requires more than that, namely, application of theory.

 

If in one's experiences a tool breaks, of course, it is just natural to replace it w/ something that doesn't.

 

And I am stating now, that relational theory alone would give us a high guarantee that some relational DBMS will not break.

 

Since, according to your line of thinking the strength of hammer has its basis on its size; then I would likewise argue that the strength of a relational DBMS has is its basis on relational theory.

 

And presently most DBMS, as relational theory would have it, breaks.

 

And "why" you asked, read my previous posts. I have been stating the reasons repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(this is good now)

 

but I'm not saying that the strength of the hammer is based on its size.  I just grabbed another hammer.  It could have been a smaller one.  BUt I originally chose the smaller one because it was easier to swing -- I'm a wimp.  When it didn't work, I moved to the next easiest option.  You'll recall that I started with my own shoe, so I wouldn't need to go and find the tool box.

 

But I do agree with you (wow) that had I considered the hammer's size, and intentionally chose a bigger and "therefore" more suitable hammer, that we'd be in agreement regarding a database.  But I didn't consider the hammer's size.

 

Instead, I just went for random arbitrary choice.  And I think most people do in most situations.  In fact, I think everyone does in every situation when it comes to problems with what they believe to be not the core thing that they are doing.  So a painter would choose the correct paint brush using theory, but someone using a paint brush as a door-stop would not care which paint brush they used -- even as it pertains to being a door stop.  They'd just grab any brush and hope it worked.

 

So when a web-site programmer grabs a database to house 10 kilobytes of data, he really doesn't care about the database in any real way -- it's all about the html to him -- so he doesn't do any theory effort at all.  When he later starts storing thousands of records, then that becomes the real job, and theory starts to be beneficial.  And when it grows further, then theory is required. 

 

That's the road that I took with my business.  And it actually allowed me to get really creative and very innovative quite early-on, because I didn't get trapped by common mistakes just because they were common, nor by techniques that weren't known to be mistakes for another couple of years.  I wasn't trapped in the same box as everyone else.  It opened many doors for me.  I also learned exactly which elements of the theory applied to precisely which problems I was having as I resolved them -- something that most theory-driven people never learn, because they never get to have those problems so close to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.