Re: Proposal: 6NF

Cimode wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> [Snipped]
> > I did not write my own definition. I'm working with the one that is in
> > the cdt glossary that came from standard mathematics.
> Standard mathematics..LOL
> I have asked you to produce one example of algebric function and you
> are incapable of it.

Here is your request:
> Not convinced? I dare you to produce/define ANY function that certainly
> produces NULL as an output.

I produced more than one function. IIRC, one was

f("M") = "Male"
f("F") = "Female"
f(NULL) = NULL

If you are going to add the adjective "algebraic" (I figure that is what you mean by "algebric") then I better get your precise definition of that, but the above would not be algebraic. If, by definition, you are restricting functions (for some unknown reason) to numeric domains and ranges, then obviously NULL is not in either.

If you are only restricting the operations and the empty set is a valid input, then f(NULL) = NULL is a function using no non-algebraic operators ;-) It has only one value for input and one for output. This is a silly request, however. When working with data we use all kinds of operators, not just algebraic. I gather you tossed the "algebraic" adjective in there because I did answer your original question accurately?

> Given the standard formulation of what you consider as a function
> definition, it is obvious to me you are confusing functions with
> sequences. And you still got the nerve of assuming such position...

If you still do not recognize that the functions I produced are functions, please let me know whcih part of the definition they do not fit. Maybe someone else can clue me in on what you might be thinking for a definition if you cannot produce one.

> > Cimode -- we can certainly write each other off, but I also think that
> > we could put our definitions on the table and try to understand what
> > the other means by their statements. What is your definition of a
> > function and why do the functions that I presented not qualify as
> > functions by your definitions? Is it because of a flawed definition
> > you have of "function" or because you are talking about an SQL NULL,
> > which I think I have repeatedly said is not the NULL value I am talking
> > about? I would rather that we each understood the other before simply
> > dropping it, if you are willing to put your cards (definitions) on the
> > table.
> You stick to a faulty definition of functions and ignore even basic
> definitions of what a function is even when people bring such
> definitions to you (I have provided a definition that is clear enough
> but you still got the nerve to state that is *my definition* ).

I don't recall that, so perhaps you could be so kind as to indicate your full definition of a function. The description you quoted from wikipedia aligned with my functions. So where is the definition that shows that the functions I produced are not functions by that definition? I am confident that I know what a function is but would really like to understand what definition you are working from.

> I have
> no time wasting with self aggrandizing ignorants that have no
> intellectual honesty...

I'm trying hard to hold a civil conversation with you, Cimode, and not just write you off, but it isn't easy. If you could provide definitions of terms, then we could perhaps avoid talking past each other. --dawn Received on Mon Oct 09 2006 - 15:22:56 CEST