Re: c.d.theory glossary - NULL

From: Alfredo Novoa <>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:05:08 GMT
Message-ID: <>

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:09:44 -0400, "Laconic2" <> 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

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.

  Alfredo Received on Tue Apr 27 2004 - 18:05:08 CEST

Original text of this message