Re: Proposal: 6NF

Brian Selzer wrote:
>
> The argument JOG made focused only on recording information, not retrieving
> it. Why would anyone abandon a sound mechanism that can significantly
> reduce the computing capacity required to answer a query?

Because your argument is merely an assumption based on what some systems of today are capable of.

Consider two possible models:

1. {i,a,b}
2. {i,a}, {i,b}

In each relation the key is {i}. If the values i,a and b are of the same types in each case then there is no fundamental reason why they can't have the same physical representation. If the physical model is the same then there is no reason why one should perform significantly differently to the other.

>
> Imaginary numbers are real values...that's news to me!
>

Then I would encourage you to read something about mathematics. Complex numbers are just as real as the reals or the integers. They are all values.

> what is the empty set?
> The absence of a value?

Absolutely not. The empty set is a value. Again, I encourage you to read some maths.

> SQL broke a lot of things. Just because one data sublanguage is screwed up
> doesn't mean that NULLs aren't useful.

If you are proposing some version of "null" that does NOT break the assignment principle then you should state clearly what your proposal is.

-- 
David Portas