Re: compound propositions
From: Mr. Scott <do_not_reply_at_noone.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:31:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CO-dnWLKOfoc_yzWnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
> ...
> No, I didn't have that in mind. Until I can put the question more
> coherently I do have a comment about 'avoiding nulls' and no offense
> intended - the phrase seems so unfortunate to me, as if it means some kind
> of detour or deviation from orthodoxy. Not unlike how so many expressions
> in other fields sooner or later acquire the opposite meaning from the
> original. I suppose 'avoiding nonsense' covers the same intended ground
> but bothering to keep either figment constantly in mind seems a waste of
> time to me. I suppose there are purists in all fields who feel a need to
> rebut every cockamamie nuance spouted by half-assed practitioners.
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:31:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CO-dnWLKOfoc_yzWnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:2oprn.364$Z6.28_at_edtnps82...
> Mr. Scott wrote:
>> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message >> news:XEvnn.71100$PH1.31420_at_edtnps82...
> ...
>>> One reason is that I still don't know how Codd's Information Principle >>> applies to compound propositions, eg., " 'C1' is a customer OR 'C1' is a >>> client". I can see that humans might imagine themselves capable of >>> interpreting a relation (or to put it redundantly a relation value) as >>> implitly mentioning that 'OR' connective (and dba's might so instruct >>> their users). But where is it recorded? (or 'manifested'?) Eg., is it >>> 'recorded' only in the ephemeral form of an expectation that a program's >>> execution can't manifest given a single relation to operate on? >>> >> >> I'm confused. Are you trying to find a way to avoid using nulls? ... >
> No, I didn't have that in mind. Until I can put the question more
> coherently I do have a comment about 'avoiding nulls' and no offense
> intended - the phrase seems so unfortunate to me, as if it means some kind
> of detour or deviation from orthodoxy. Not unlike how so many expressions
> in other fields sooner or later acquire the opposite meaning from the
> original. I suppose 'avoiding nonsense' covers the same intended ground
> but bothering to keep either figment constantly in mind seems a waste of
> time to me. I suppose there are purists in all fields who feel a need to
> rebut every cockamamie nuance spouted by half-assed practitioners.
Nulls are not nonsense. They're merely a device that permits the recording of disjunctive information in neat tabular format. Received on Tue Mar 30 2010 - 04:31:29 CEST