Re: Proposal: 6NF
From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:37:23 GMT
Message-ID: <nVXWg.45241$rP1.12593_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> Why after citing specific vendors, and casting aspersions at Sybase are
>> you now withdrawing from discussion on your 75% failure rate? BTW what
>> is the 4th DB you consider not to be a "toy" that does run the queries
>> correctly?
>> So there was no error in your code even though the NULL was lodged in
>> field1 but all the WHERE clauses referenced field2? To my reading these
>> statements did not reconcile to the claims made in the text about "="
>> and "<>". Feel free to correct an erroneous assertion.
>> I don't (even feel compelled to) associate NULL or grey (sic) with
>> mathematics in any form hence my awareness is irrelevant in respect of
>> this thread. IMO others who post vehemently in CDT about the lack of a
>> mathematical basis for NULL are actually simpleton dogmatics who have
>> already formed a view that NULL is ultra evil and seize upon the
>> convenience the square peg (NULL) offers them to denounce it like a
>> Stalinist lackey would their own blood.
> Bringing politics has no value. Stick to science. Period...
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:37:23 GMT
Message-ID: <nVXWg.45241$rP1.12593_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Cimode wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>> 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?
> I am not withdrawing anything about 75% rate paked up between > ORACLE/DB2 and SQL Server (Source IDC). And yes, I do consider Sybase, > MySQL and other dbms's as toys...
Sigh! Although perhaps English is not your first language you do understand what the symbol "?" means? (arghhh Catch-22)!!!
>>>>>> implied or field2 as written. Did you actually execute these statements >>>>>> on all of the platforms cited? >>> Yep...This is what I wrote.
>> So there was no error in your code even though the NULL was lodged in
>> field1 but all the WHERE clauses referenced field2? To my reading these
>> statements did not reconcile to the claims made in the text about "="
>> and "<>". Feel free to correct an erroneous assertion.
> There is nothing complex in the code I suggested. Just a simple insert > of 4 lines with 2 fields with one line having 1 NULL value...You should > stop mental masturbation on that.
You are deluded - the code was faulty!
>>>>> 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... >
>> 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.
> Bringing politics has no value. Stick to science. Period...
Yet another humourless automata (Voigt-Kampff) - you have avoided all discussion on content so "au revoir".
Frank. Received on Wed Oct 11 2006 - 03:37:23 CEST