Re: Proposal: 6NF
Date: 9 Oct 2006 04:43:42 -0700
Message-ID: <1160394222.377423.241330_at_e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Frank Hamersley wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Frank Hamersley wrote:
> >> Cimode wrote:
> >>> Frank Hamersley wrote:
> >>>> Cimode wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>>>> Not convinced? Tons of arguments and proofs were presented to make a
> >>>>> case against them..Another proof, run this in SQL ORACLE, SQL Server or
> >>>>> DB2
> >>>> Should I try it on Sybase ASE 12.5?
> >>> I personally do not work on toys to draw conclusions...Using only main
> >>> products...
> >>>
> >>> ORACLE + SQL Server + DB2 = 3 out of 4 db's right?
> >> Cute - you are aware of SQL Server's heritage in making that statement?
> >> No doubt you also appreciate Microsofts blue ribbon contribution to IT
> >> - expediency before quality?
> > SQL SERVER, ORACLE and DB2 have the same heritage then...
>
> Don't know much about DB2 but Oracle certainly had that reputation in my
> time during the era of mini computers. The buzz was they expended all
> their efforts in porting to every new platform rather than addressing
> existing customer problems. As a commercial strategy - very effective -
> as a ethical question - very doubtful IMO.
A technology debate has no value...The point is NULL values in SQL cause huge problems in 3 out of 4 systems. Neither SQL Server nor ORACLE nor DB2 make exception to the rule...The rest is just unessecary to comment...
> >> implied or field2 as written. Did you actually execute these statements
> >> on all of the platforms cited?
Yep...This is what I wrote.
> > Either something equals a value either it differes from it...Are you
> > saying that 3VL makes the previous statement false? Could you answer
> > that precise question...
>
> Yep sure can. You are correct in asserting either "value = value" or the
> inverse "value != value" must be true. The problem is that NULL itself
> is not a value and can not be substituted for "value" - it lies outside
> the domain of all possible "values". NULL is also opaque so you can't
> infer that because there could be a value that NULL must take on that
> values nature.
No debate then. Some idiots still believe that SQL NULLS are values...
> >> Seems to me these products you put so much stead in behave just like
> >> ASE...the only problem is your black and white interpretation when in
> >> fact there is gray as well. Sure, I accept life would be simpler if
> >> there was only 2 possible outcomes, but that statement does not imply
> >> life with 3VL is impossible.
> > Gray has nothing to do with math...At least not the math I am aware
> > of...
>
> Who is Gray? I was talking about gray (or grey if you prefer).
I have meant *grey* . If the mathematics you are *aware of* include
grey areas then they are probably not mathematics. mathematics is not
a magic bag in which one can drop bullshits. Math are regulated by
centuries of research, rules and definitions especially in the domain
of algebra.
> Cheers, Frank.
Received on Mon Oct 09 2006 - 13:43:42 CEST