Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 9 Oct 2006 07:21:11 -0700
Message-ID: <1160403671.630010.258760_at_m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>


Frank Hamersley wrote:
> Why after citing specific vendors, and casting aspersions at Sybase are
> you now withdrawing from discussion on your 75% failure rate? BTW what
> is the 4th DB you consider not to be a "toy" that does run the queries
> correctly?
I am not withdrawing anything about 75% rate paked up between ORACLE/DB2 and SQL Server (Source IDC). And yes, I do consider Sybase, MySQL and other dbms's as toys...

> >>>> implied or field2 as written. Did you actually execute these statements
> >>>> on all of the platforms cited?
> > Yep...This is what I wrote.
>
> So there was no error in your code even though the NULL was lodged in
> field1 but all the WHERE clauses referenced field2? To my reading these
> statements did not reconcile to the claims made in the text about "="
> and "<>". Feel free to correct an erroneous assertion.
There is nothing complex in the code I suggested. Just a simple insert of 4 lines with 2 fields with one line having 1 NULL value...You should stop mental masturbation on that.

> >>> 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...

> I don't (even feel compelled to) associate NULL or grey (sic) with
> mathematics in any form hence my awareness is irrelevant in respect of
> this thread. IMO others who post vehemently in CDT about the lack of a
> mathematical basis for NULL are actually simpleton dogmatics who have
> already formed a view that NULL is ultra evil and seize upon the
> convenience the square peg (NULL) offers them to denounce it like a
> Stalinist lackey would their own blood.
Bringing politics has no value. Stick to science. Period... Received on Mon Oct 09 2006 - 16:21:11 CEST

Original text of this message