Re: Request for Miracle
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 18:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
> On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 04:38:13 UTC+10, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> > Derek Asirvadem wrote:
> > Since I possess the miracle of sight, I try not to argue with the blind. I don't suffer from The Null Problem, I have the Resolution.
> So just say a word and make me see, too.
First, thank you very much, you are very kind. Sorry, but I must inform you, I do not have the powers to bestow miracles. You need to go to someone much higher than I.
Second, it is quite strange, because if you honestly believed in The Word, you would instantly be cured of the blindness. So the evidence is, (a) you do not actually believe in The Word, (b) but you ask for it anyway, and (c) you are asking someone who doesn't have the power to perform miracles. That position might be a bit more crippling than mere blindness.
> What is the public definition of "The Null Problem" for the non-blind?
Again, you request an impossibility. If you read the thread, I have already stated several times, the sighted do not have "The Null Problem". It is an artefact that exists only in the theoretical universe, validly, but one that has been made grand and has monuments erected to it by the blind, by the pseudo-theoreticians.
We sighted ones cannot define what we do not have; know; love; are addicted to. We know a tiny bit about blindness, but we cannot define it, because we are not blind, and blindness is a whole syndrome, a way of life, with many, many, abnormal ways of living. Contrary to what most of the posters have posted (re the relevance of their private "definitions"), objective definitions (from an authority, a truth that does not change) require a bit more than imaginings and speculation.
> > But that should not pose an obstacle to progress ... As long as you suggest an authoritative source, we can progress.
Please don't be shy, it is nothing to be ashamed of. If you suffer the crippling effects of The Null Problem, then you will have some public "definition" of what is crippling you. Speak it, and you will have taken the first step out of your disease. I can help, I can only try, to show you the path out of it, as a sighted person. But no miracles, just straight, clear, logical thinking.
And no guarantees: some people are so addicted to their diseases, they will not give them up, even after the cure is given to them. Usually, they have to respect it and pay for it, in order to receive it. Things that are given away free have no value. But I will take a chance with you and give it to you free.
(I do guarantee my database deliveries, but that is easy, since (a) I only use sighted people when I build them, I do not hire the blind, and (b) it is paid for, appreciated for what it is.)
Please pick any of the public "definitions", as long as it is from some recognised authority.
Here is an example of what I am trying to avoid, what NOT to choose. Here, the posters have the common but only partially correct understanding of "The Null Problem", they are not theoretical enough to have heard about its grand theoretical title. As practical people, they have attacked the problem, and each has their own justification of what is correct or not. Ben is of course right, in the one thing that he proposes, but he does not know *why* he is right, he cannot articulate it. http://www.bennadel.com/blog/85-why-null-values-should-not-be-used-in-a-database-unless-required.htm
That is the sad state of play that the pseudo-scientists have left for the plebs to grind away with. It is more of a statement about them, than of the plebs.
The sighted do not have that problem.
-- Since you cannot produce a public "definition" for your disease, here are a few *suggestions* for you to choose from, so that we can progress: 1. Wiki is hardly an authority. The wiki entry (as at today), is confused, so I would prefer not to use it, because we will have to clear up the confusion before we can get to the real "Null Problem". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL). It has the usual veneration of stupidity, such as MVCC; Deferred Constraint Checking; and F571, that pseudo-academics have these days. 2. The TweedleDumb entry is massively confused, because the great ass purposely mixes things up, in order to promote his agenda, his fantasy that "SQL is broken", the whole paper is Straw Man. Besides, he cannot Normalise data if his life depended on it, so there are various subterfuges and tricks (he obviously does perform black miracles, because he makes the sighted ones blind) that we would have to excise before we can deal with the real "Null Problem". http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~hugh/CS319/CS319-Missing-info-without-NULL.pdf I have already stated:Received on Tue Sep 09 2014 - 03:18:41 CEST
> > ... Date, Darwen, Fagin, and the rest of the cursed ones who write books, and the university lecturers who follow them like lemmings, have all used Straw Man or otherwise invalid examples, and their proposals which are based on such invalid examples, are false.
But I suspect, you are attached to that particular cursed one. 3. The Teradata entry is the least confused, the least obtuse. But it does not attempt to define "The Null Problem". http://www.info.teradata.com/HTMLPubs/DB_TTU_14_10/index.html#page/Database_Management/B035_1094_112A/ch13.063.01.html 4. RM/T ("Tasmania") itself is rejected, because Codd himself backed away from it. That was an exploration after his association with Date, before he realised he was being royally screwed. But you might choose it anyway, and then we have to go through Codd's rejection of it. Cheers Derek