Re: c.d.theory glossary - NULL
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:05:08 GMT
Message-ID: <408e8175.21364790_at_news.wanadoo.es>
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:09:44 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>Second, the NULL marker (bit, if you like) is far from the insanity bit.
It is a botch up that breaks the logical framework.
>In most cases where it's used, it's more like the humility bit.
It's more like the ruining marker.
>Next, NULL is not a value. I don't care what Date or Kimball say on the
>subject.
Date says that null is not a value.
>Next, the absence of an assertion is not the assertion of an absence.
A "proposition" with a mark is not a proposition, it is a bullshit :-)
>Next, every NULL in an RDB is the result of an outer join of relations.
If a DB has nulls then it is not an RDB.
>The fact that tables can have NULLs in them, and relations can't is another
>point of difference between tables and relations.
Indeed, it is one of the reasons because SQL is not relational. SQL is a corruption of The Relational Model.
Regards
Alfredo
Received on Tue Apr 27 2004 - 18:05:08 CEST