Re: Proposal: 6NF
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:07:13 GMT
Message-ID: <lIsWg.44396$rP1.22126_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Cimode wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>> Cimode wrote:
>>> Frank Hamersley wrote: >>>> Cimode wrote: >>>>> Frank Hamersley wrote: >>>>>> Cimode wrote: >>>> [..] >>>>>>> Not convinced? Tons of arguments and proofs were presented to make a >>>>>>> case against them..Another proof, run this in SQL ORACLE, SQL Server or >>>>>>> DB2 >>>>>> Should I try it on Sybase ASE 12.5? >>>>> I personally do not work on toys to draw conclusions...Using only main >>>>> products... >>>>> >>>>> ORACLE + SQL Server + DB2 = 3 out of 4 db's right? >>>> Cute - you are aware of SQL Server's heritage in making that statement? >>>> No doubt you also appreciate Microsofts blue ribbon contribution to IT >>>> - expediency before quality? >>> SQL SERVER, ORACLE and DB2 have the same heritage then...
>> Don't know much about DB2 but Oracle certainly had that reputation in my
>> time during the era of mini computers. The buzz was they expended all
>> their efforts in porting to every new platform rather than addressing
>> existing customer problems. As a commercial strategy - very effective -
>> as a ethical question - very doubtful IMO.
> A technology debate has no value...The point is NULL values in SQL > cause huge problems in 3 out of 4 systems. Neither SQL Server nor > ORACLE nor DB2 make exception to the rule...The rest is just unessecary > to comment...
Why after citing specific vendors, and casting aspersions at Sybase are you now withdrawing from discussion on your 75% failure rate? BTW what is the 4th DB you consider not to be a "toy" that does run the queries correctly?
>>>> implied or field2 as written. Did you actually execute these statements >>>> on all of the platforms cited? > Yep...This is what I wrote.
>>> Either something equals a value either it differes from it...Are you >>> saying that 3VL makes the previous statement false? Could you answer >>> that precise question...
>> Yep sure can. You are correct in asserting either "value = value" or the
>> inverse "value != value" must be true. The problem is that NULL itself
>> is not a value and can not be substituted for "value" - it lies outside
>> the domain of all possible "values". NULL is also opaque so you can't
>> infer that because there could be a value that NULL must take on that
>> values nature.
> No debate then. Some idiots still believe that SQL NULLS are values...
Phew - you had me worried for a while when you were running if not "equal" then must be "not equal" line. :-)
>>>> Seems to me these products you put so much stead in behave just like >>>> ASE...the only problem is your black and white interpretation when in >>>> fact there is gray as well. Sure, I accept life would be simpler if >>>> there was only 2 possible outcomes, but that statement does not imply >>>> life with 3VL is impossible. >>> Gray has nothing to do with math...At least not the math I am aware >>> of...
>> Who is Gray? I was talking about gray (or grey if you prefer).
> I have meant *grey* . If the mathematics you are *aware of* include > grey areas then they are probably not mathematics. mathematics is not > a magic bag in which one can drop bullshits. Math are regulated by > centuries of research, rules and definitions especially in the domain > of algebra.
I don't (even feel compelled to) associate NULL or grey (sic) with mathematics in any form hence my awareness is irrelevant in respect of this thread. IMO others who post vehemently in CDT about the lack of a mathematical basis for NULL are actually simpleton dogmatics who have already formed a view that NULL is ultra evil and seize upon the convenience the square peg (NULL) offers them to denounce it like a Stalinist lackey would their own blood.
Cheers, Frank. Received on Mon Oct 09 2006 - 16:07:13 CEST