Re: The Null Problem is a Non-issue

> On Wednesday, 14 January 2015 08:40:05 UTC+11, Eric wrote:
>
> > 2. And you don't know the answer. Otherwise there is no question to ask.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > 3. And you are asking someone who does know the answer. Which, if
> > provided, would be an education, your level of knowledge in the subject
> > would be elevated. An education which you did not have, when you asked
> > the question, before I supplied the answer.
>
> I don't think you can actually use the word "education" in exactly that
> way. However I am prepared to believe that, like Humpty Dumpty, you are
> paying it extra.

That is not clear. Do you mean you are like Humpty Dumpty while I am "paying it extra" (whatever that means) or that I am like Humpty Dumpty ?

Insulting the very person that you are asking to educate you (even if *you* wish to call it something else, in order to receive it without acknowledging it for what it is) is a self-sabotaging act, stupid really. Typical of those who contradict themselves.

> > Could you please confirm the above, have I got that right ?
>
> Well, yes,

Oh, we might have an opening.

> except that the answer which you know is why you hold the
> opinion that Oracle does not belong in the list. You give the impression
> of thinking that it is a self-evident fact,

No, we don't.

It is self-evident to those who are educated. Many facts, actually, that is why it would be an enumeration, and not merely a justification of a single opinion.

Oracle groupies, know only Oracle, and do not know that the statements in their "documentation" and marketing glossies are false. They know no *facts* about Commercial RDBMS. But they have *opinions* about other platforms. So they are doubly crippled. And the educator has two obstacles to overcome: correcting the opinions re Oracle with facts; and correcting the opinions re other RDBMS with facts.

The same problem exists with the pseudo-academics, the PostgresNonSQL groupies. They know only their pathetic "SQL" platform. They don't know any others. But they have strong opinions about the others anyway. Sure, their "SQL" is broken, and badly. But they think that their "SQL" is SQL. And that SQL (as distinct from their "SQL") is broken. And that all other SQL platforms are likewise broken. It is very sad. But the really hilarious bit is, they write papers to that effect and not only advertise their abject ignorance, they insist that their tiny universe is The Universe. And a raft of their pseudo-academic peers review such papers. A trap for young players who believe them.

Truth is objective. Science is about finding the objective truth about something. As a consequence, objective and permanent definitions are formed, which can be applied to all areas where the science is used (applied science).

Many of the posters here are pseudo-scientists, because they demand subjective private definitions, and that leads to endless argument, without any resolution, and science and the application of science (building something in the physical universe) is avoided. Or worse, the science that they allege to be practising becomes perverted into a non-science, nonsense.

Those who build things stick to the science, objective facts and permanent public definitions, we cannot afford to keep changing the foundations of a building. Pseudo-scientists have no foundation, no building, they only have dreams about what a building might possibly be, which changes every night. You are evidently quite used to that. I won't be engaging in that. I am quite happy with building things using facts, applying science.

> but I can see only opinion unless there is justification.

That stinks of the argument I have just described.

Science is not about opinion, opinion needs justification. Opinions are personal, subjective. Endless argument without resolution. Just check the posts in this forum. Or the "papers" and "lectures" and "books" given by schizophrenics such as C J Date (aka TweedleDee), R Fagin, H Darwen (aka TweedleDum).

Science is about facts, which do not need justification, because they are established facts. Facts are objective, and only the schizophrenic deny them. For the educated, those facts are self-evident. For the ignorant, they argue about their precious opinions, and justify them, precisely because they are ignorant of the facts. Education cures ignorance. Education is simply the delivery of facts.

Which is precisely why, the person receiving the education has to acknowledge that:

a. the  person that they have sought out as the source for the education (objective facts) *is an authority*
b. the person receiving the education is ignorant of said facts
c. the person receiving the education is open, ready and willing to receive those facts.

Now all three points are self-evident to a normal human, and one without pride will readily acknowledge it and get on with the delivery. But in your case, the evidence is, in this and other recent threads, you have some serious mental damage that prevents the those three facts from being self-evident. And you are addicted to the endless argument (opinions; the subjective; justifications; private "definitions" that change with changing opinions). And that the diameter of your pride is larger than the diameter of you oesophagus.

It is also very common that Oracle groupies live in caves, and protect their opinions by the denial of facts. So that is the third obstacle that has to be overcome: an obstinate denial of facts, after the facts have been delivered to you.

> You will be not a confirmed authority
> graciously handing down facts,

Whether I am a confirmed authority or not, is not something that a person who is proven to be ignorant in the subject, and who is begging for education (under some other name, so that the diameter is reduced), can determine. That is a self-evident fact.

But in your private universe, you place yourself in position above the authority that you seek education from. So you are contradicting yourself, sabotaging the very delivery that you seek. A fourth obstacle. And it confirms the third obstacle: that you will treat facts as opinions and argue for weeks.

I don't have the necessary qualifications to overcome those obstacles for you.

> but a human being explaining your opinion.
> but a human being [justify]ing your opinion.

The evidence is otherwise. You are obviously used to the argument; the subjective; the opinion; the justification, and you are expecting that, you are addicted to that. Hence I state that you really want to engage for the purpose of argument. You are evidently quite unwilling to accept that:

a. science is about objective facts (there is no argument to be had)
b. education is about delivery
c. of said objective facts
d. from an authority
e. to an ignorant student

So as long as you place me in the position of human being justifying an opinion, you cannot be educated, about the subject that you seek education for, from the person that you have sought to educate you.

So as long as you place yourself in a position above the person that you have sought to educate you, about the subject that you seek education for, you cannot be educated. Fear of, or rejection of, authority, is a huge problem among the young these days, it is the foundation of criminality.

Professional educators (as distinct from the creatures who pass for "lecturers" in "universities" these days), determine the above. We have a term for it: you are un-teachable.

You will have to learn to accept, and live with, the *facts* (self-evident to the educated; arguable opinions to the ignorant and the mentally damaged) that:

a. you suffer The Null Problem, in all its inflated glory, in the physical universe (your "databases")
b. despite the fact that it is an artefact of the unreal universe, that does not need to exist in the real universe
c. which is evidence that you have actively (ignorantly) implemented it in the physical universe, where it did not previously exist.
d. you were ignorant of how to remove yourself and your "databases" from universe of The Null Problem
e. you remain obstinately, vociferously, ignorant, and you actively prevent yourself from gaining such knowledge
f. *separate to, and in addition to*, The Null Problem, you and your "databases" suffer The Oracle Null Problem, in all its sanctified insanity.

Re [f], just one of the hundreds of possible Hints: Null does not equal the empty string. Except in Oracle. And only half the time. Note, that is two separate points: Oracle is non-compliant re SQL Null; and Oracle is inconsistent re Null vs empty string.

There, you have obtained one item from the enumeration, despite your obstacles. I have managed to squeeze just one item past the blockage. But I will bet that you, in your evidenced schizophrenic state, will: view the facts as opinions; pose some other strange opinion; and provide a justification for it; all while denying the self-evident facts. And thus remain uneducated, ignorant, even though the facts have been presented to you. Which is again, evidence of a pathological state of denial, the "normal" condition of schizophrenia.

Very sad. Which is why that triggers my charity.

> If you don't like that feel free to ignore me henceforth and I will try
> to live with it.

The evidence is, plastered all over this forum, you can't live with it. The evidence is, you keep following me around, engaging with me at every possibility (threads that have nothing to do with you), asking me questions. For my part, the evidence is, I have not ignored you, I have tried to address that fragmented part of you that genuinely seeks education. The evidence is, there is a second fragmented part of you that sabotages the first fragmented part, and prevents the delivery it seeks.

Nothing to do with me, you deadlock yourself, all on your own.

In my second post of 13 Jan 15, I have given you suggestions for alternate sources, from which to obtain the answers to your question, but you have not exercised that option. Which is further evidence that you are intent on obtaining answers from specifically me, and not some other source. Which is further evidence that the first fragment indeed considers me to be an authority in the subject, and that the second fragment is lying. Sad indeed.

I will not be tricked into engaging with the second fragment. There are many posters here who will eagerly service the evidenced needs of that second fragment, but you are not asking questions of those who can serve your need. You are going to the butcher for bread, *and* you refuse to go to the bakery, where bread is freely available. Two separate schizophrenic obstacles.

> I am happy to at least start with a short explanation. As for education
> and elevation, that depends on how I respond to the answer. I could
>
> 1) accept it as a demonstrated truth
> 2) accept it as a plausible possible truth requiring clarification or
> elaboration
> 3) disagree with it and be able to provide evidence to back up my
> disagreement
> 4) disagree by instinct, which would presumably be valid grounds for
> discontinuing the conversation.
>
> Obviously I can not specify which of these will apply until I have seen
> the answer.

That is further evidence, re-inforcing the facts that I have already stated above, so I won't repeat those points.

Given that you are the seeker, and that you are asking me the question, it is not open to you to determine or "specify" anything about me or the education (facts) that you seek. Something you evidently cannot grasp: the educator and the ignorant are not equals. The ignorant, if genuinely seeking education (by any name), need to shut up, and be open to learning. Which you cannot do since you view facts as opinions, and you place yourself above the educator that you seek education from, as detailed above. Self-sabotage. Deadlock. Good night.

After, and that is well after, one has gained the education, and after, well after, one has practised, exercised said education, then, and only then, is one in a position that qualifies one to determine anything about the science, the education. Until then, you remain locked in a cave, dreaming private dreams, fantasies, about The Universe and everything. Those dreams will get punctured when you come outside and engage with someone who is grounded in their science. It might be safer to stay inside to your private universe.

Mind you, I am not saying that you are alone in that pathetic situation, or that you are the creator of the position that you enjoy. You are probably following the poor example that Darwen and other freaks like him have established:

- It is evidenced that he can't Normalise data if his life depended on it, but hey, he writes "papers" on "normal forms". Which are in fact, abnormal forms for Record Filing Systems.
- It is evidenced that he knows nothing about the Relational Model; its application; and he has not produced a single exposition of what it really is.  But hey, he declares it to be what it is not, produces volumes about that, and takes every opportunity to diminish RM.  
- It is evidenced that he knows nothing about SQL or Commercial SQL platforms.  For sure, he was on the SQL Committee that installed The Null Problem in it.  But for the Commercial RDBMS vendors, he has sabotaged SQL.  But hey, he declares it to be broken (refer details above re PostgresNonSQL groupies), carefully avoiding the fact tat he broke it. 
- It is evidenced that he knows nothing about languages, let alone a data sub-language, but hey, he is going to "define" one.  Of course, the "definitions" are private, they keep changing, and after 20 years, nothing has been produced.  But hey, he is still going to "define" one.

The result is, the value of the RM and SQL has been diminished: the RM is way more than his freaky opinion of it; it is not incomplete; and SQL too is neither broken nor incomplete.

Darwen is master of two things, which is unfortunately not acknowledged, so let me be the first to do so: Master of Record Filing Systems; and Fraud in the science, through the mastery of the construction of the Straw Men. He stopped corresponding with me years ago, due to my fantasy-puncturing qualities. Maybe you should too. One has to be enchanted to believe his opinions, and I have not drunk the Koo-Aid.

That is the abject state of our science these days.

> Thank you,

You are most welcome.

Sorry I can't help you.

Cheers
Derek Received on Wed Jan 14 2015 - 03:58:16 CET