Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?

From: JOG <>
Date: 29 Nov 2005 12:55:47 -0800
Message-ID: <> wrote:
> NULL, as defined in mathematics and according to the root meaning for
> the word in the dictionary, is, properly, an empty set or "not any".
> That is the perfectly acceptable reason for NULL. There is no 3VL with
> this NULL. There is no distinction between two NULL values. Things are
> either distinct or not distinct - never unknown.

Wuh? Where on earth did you get that from? So you're saying db values are now all sets, which I figure you are saying are normally singletons? They must be if one possibility is that they can be the empty set? Sigh, that's just nonsense. An empty set is an empty set, it has no correspondence with null's at all.

Ok, I heartily recommend "Set Theory and Its Philosophy: A Critical Introduction" by Michael Potter to you - I think it will explain the confusion between sets and fusions. Received on Tue Nov 29 2005 - 21:55:47 CET

Original text of this message