Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

Jonathan Leffler wrote:

> michael_at_preece.net wrote:
> > David Cressey wrote:
> >> [...]
> > Here's the thing: If you have a table with an unlimited number of rows
> > and a limited number of columns then it is understood that the number
> > of tuples in the table is rows*columns. True?
>
> Not for any definition I've heard of... Did you mean 'values' instead
> of 'tuples'? "The number of values in the table is rows * columns".

Yes - kind of, only I really mean the container for a value, rather than the value itself. If I'd meant "value" I guess I would have used the word "value". Value is a word I'm familiar with - unlike tuple. Sorry if I misused the word "tuple". I asked what one of those was a while back and ended up thinking of a tuple as like a "cell" in a spreadsheet - the intersection of column and row - the container for a value or set or scalar or relation. Oh dear - I might have just thrown in a few potential bones of contention there. I don't mean to confuse anyone. I confess I am unused to these terms and am struggling with a foreign language, in a way. Please extend the same courtesy to me as you would to someone who is not a native English speaker.

>
> > And every tuple must have a value.
>
> Yes - for tuples as tuples, or tuples misreferenced when values was
> intended. Further, the component values in each tuple must have a value.
>
> > And if we don't have a actual value for one or more tuples we
> > have to use NULL to represent the fact that there is no value.
>
> IMO, this is so confused between tuples and values that there is no
> value in debating further... :-(

OK. OK. Don't spit your dummy so quickly. I wasn't sure I was using the right terms. That's why the "OK?" was in there. Thanks for pointing out the misuse of a sacrosanct term. You can put your pacifier back in now.

>
> I'm not going to consider the rest of the posting - I would need to
> understand this much of it before going any further, and as you can tell
> from my comments, I don't understand what you've written.

You really were doing a marvelous job. I understand it must have very been difficult for you - my using "tuple" when I should have used some other word. God - how stupid of me. Tut, tut, tut.

>
> Would you be willing to try again?

Well - yes, if you respond to the full post. Just read "cell" or whatever you want for "tuple". It's the intersection of a column and a row. The container for a value. OK? And please don't bother responding to this post. It'll only become a pointless argument. If you do decide to address the same post again, please don't snip so heavily. It's often really annoying when people remove content that is, or becomes, relevant to the discussion as it evolves.

Cheers
Mike. Received on Tue Dec 06 2005 - 03:12:54 CET