Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:37:23 GMT
Message-ID: <nVXWg.45241$rP1.12593@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Cimode wrote:

> 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...

Sigh! Although perhaps English is not your first language you do understand what the symbol "?" means? (arghhh Catch-22)!!!

>>>>>> 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.

You are deluded - the code was faulty!

>>>>> 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...

Yet another humourless automata (Voigt-Kampff) - you have avoided all discussion on content so "au revoir".

Frank. Received on Tue Oct 10 2006 - 20:37:23 CDT