Re: Question on Structuring Product Attributes

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:31:46 -0800 (PST) Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> The example code you provide is a special form of straw man
> argument. It is not stupid. It is "clever" in the sense of the
> "cleverness" of neurotics such as Date and Darwen. It is dishonest,
> non-logic presented as "logic".

I do tire of your insults. You seem to enjoy decrying that day is night, and harrumphing that anyone who disagrees is some combination of neurotic, dishonest, and illogical. Preferably in the same sentence.

What reason have I deceive you? Why should I be dishonest, or present a straw man argument? Just to prove a point on the usenet?

Not only do I lack motivation, but you lack facts. My queries aren't dishonest. They're just simple -- not clever -- illustrations of the *fact* that the logic you so admire resolves to TRUE when it is tautologically FALSE.

The reason I remember those kinds of queries from over 10 years ago is that they were problematic. The real ones weren't as simple as what I posted for illustration; they were more complex. The NOTs and ANDs were sometimes many lines apart.

SQL was intended, I'm sure you agree, to be a language for deriving logical inferences. If SQL is "defined in the RM" as you so avidly believe, it should at least be logical. But Sybase's treatment of NULL before ANSI contravened the generally accepted meaning of the symbols both outside the language *and* within it. You can't apply Boolean logic. You can't apply De Morgan's laws. You just have to remember the weirdness and live with its limitations.

I'm far from the first or only person to notice. I don't know why I thought I could explain it to you, especially after Darwen couldn't.

	"I can explain it to you.  But I can't understand it for you."
	-- Ed Koch

I don't know how to penetrate your shield of certitude. Every question I've posed in *theoretical* terms -- that's the "t" in c.d.t., remember? -- you declined to answer. Many words you wrote, but answer be there none.

So here's my first and last piece of advice to you: instead of vacant assessments about the quality of everyone's posts, and claiming to know the answer without showing it, how about you restrict yourself to saying something -- hopefully correct -- about the theory we're all supposedly here to discuss? Unless I miss my guess, that should save you a *lot* of time. You might not have to type a single word.

--jkl Received on Fri Feb 15 2013 - 05:03:35 CET