Re: Proposal: 6NF

dawn wrote:

> Again, that depends on your definition of NULL. I don't understand how
> you would not think it depends on your definition. Do you think these
> letters fell from the sky with a meaning attached?
Values are universally defined as output of functions and NO science does not fall from the sky...

> Not convinced? I dare you to produce/define ANY function that certainly
> produces NULL as an output. If you can't then just shut the hell
> up...and stop confusing people...

> I did produce one. If you would like to see it in action, you can use
> the open source dbms OpenQM. Remember, this is NOT an SQL NULL.
> OpenQM does not support SQL.
Stating that f(NULL) = NULL is NOT a proof and F(x) = x NOT a precise example of a function...cos(x) is an example of function 2(x) + 3 is a function... Do you know what is a function?

You did not demonstrate anything except that you don't understand the formal mathematical definition of a function...You consider as logical *proof* a specific example of implementation (open source bulshit)...

> OK, I'm open to correction and would like to understand your point. In
> practice, functions like this are common in Pick (even if not specified
> like this). The point was to show that in fact a NULL (not an SQL
> NULL) can be the output of a function.
A *correction* is unsufficicent to compensate your ignorance or stubborness to ignore the formal definition of a function. You build a reasonning based on basically well ...nothing

Any implementation that follows such flawed principles should be ignored...

> What is an accurate generalization or abstraction from Pick? What are
> the precise features that permit this example of a function with null
> in the range of a function within the dbms environment? I thought the
> 2VL was a key factor in null being a value rather than a non-value as
> it is in SQL. Thanks. --dawn
A confused mind...confusing others... Received on Sat Oct 07 2006 - 06:00:53 CEST