Jump to content

Query: retrieve NULL values


dtyson2000

Recommended Posts

@fenway

Sure -- but I'm not trying to judge it at all.  I'm trying to help people USE it.  That's where "ephemeral" knowledge becomes vitally important.

 

Oh. I thought if you want to learn to drive, surely you must have a working car. You need not know mechanics. But at least you must have some basic idea - your judgement - about the car in question. Otherwise, "using" the car becomes a ridiculous enterprise.

 

I will not deny that implementation issues are important. They are vital as theory. They may be ephemeral, but they are still vital.

 

But: IMO, people do not care anymore about theory. They always concern themselves with implementation, with product-specific facts and quirks.

 

They do not anymore question the product itself. They treat the product as the last say about relational theory, where in fact there is still more; and that the community, aided with theory, could pressure the leading vendors - the ones with great resources - to create a more stable, useful, theoretically-sound product.

 

That's the whole point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@holophrastic

You know what an erline table it, or you wouldn't think it irrelevant.  They fly in the face of your theory concept, as they are nothing more than real-world look-up tables derived purely from observational experience, summarizing data that can't be predicted from any known algorithm.

 

And certainly, we don't ever want to "judge the usefulness" of anything.  We want to demonstrate the usefulness. Two very different things.

Stop blurting nonsense, please.

 

But we left on-topic long ago.

I may agree on this. But at least what we are discussing was not nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure -- but I'm not trying to judge it at all.  I'm trying to help people USE it.  That's where "ephemeral" knowledge becomes vitally important.

Let me be clear.

 

Think of a calculator. Can you really use it w/o knowledge in arithmetic?

 

Of course not. W/o such knowledge all you can do with the calculator is type silly words.

 

The same thing for a DBMS. The DBMS is a calculator - a very powerful, complex calculator. Its input are not only numbers, but, primarily, sets.

 

Now, can you use it w/o knowledge of set-theory, of relational theory? No, sir, you cannot.

 

Imagine a kid who has no knowledge of arithmetic. Then his lazy math teacher gives him a defective calculator. And the teacher says, "this device will perform addition for you. Just type the numbers." And when the kid does input 2 + 2, it gives 5.

 

Now he goes on telling the world that he knows addition by heart. He does 2 + 2 = 5.

 

What's wrong with the story?

 

He didn't know arithmetic. That's what's wrong with it. He didn't bother checking his calculator. How can he check his calculator - how can he evaluate its effectiveness or defectiveness? Knowledge about theory. That is the only way.

 

To be sure, yes, you can use a DBMS w/o formal knowledge. Relational theory also relies on intuition (as mathematics and logic do) - we can know it "by nature" so to speak.

 

But if you want to effectively use it - and not just use it - you have to do more than intuition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you have no idea what an erline table is.  I guess it would sound like nonsense to you.  But that's very consistent with the majority of your arguments.  So I'm disappointed, but not surprised. 

 

You're just totally wrong when you say that you need to effectively use something to have the value of using it.  You've completely ignored the costs associated with acquiring formal knowledge of any given device.  For the number of defective calculators out there, that formal knowledge is way to high of a cost to cover the few defective calculators. 

 

You, like so many others, completely disregard the costs of what you advise.  That's irresponsible.  But since you don't actually do anything with your knowledge, it's not surprising that you don't see its cost.

 

You also lose out on all of the benefits that can be gained by specifically not understanding how a device works; there are many, and most of them surround not only speed but innovation.  So basically, you're slow, uninspiring, and completely text-book about everything.  Which means that you should teach; and then your students should ignore you.

 

But that's typical of most in your position.  So good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you have no idea what an erline table is.  I guess it would sound like nonsense to you.  But that's very consistent with the majority of your arguments.

I've googled "erline" and not found any significant results. That's my "basis" for dismissing it as nonsense. Perhaps you could share your references to me, to us?

So I'm disappointed, but not surprised. 

Your disappointment and surprise are of no relevance to me. So why state it?

 

You're just totally wrong when you say that you need to effectively use something to have the value of using it. 

What is your basis for saying that? Ah, the erline table. Is my example/analogy on calculators not clear enough?

 

You've completely ignored the costs associated with acquiring formal knowledge of any given device.  For the number of defective calculators out there, that formal knowledge is way to high of a cost to cover the few defective calculators. 

I have not understood what you meant or imply by that string of words. Please clarify.

 

You, like so many others, completely disregard the costs of what you advise.  That's irresponsible.

I am aware of the "cost" of my advice. It's free.

 

If "my advice" means undervaluing existing DBMS, so be it. I have the backing of the leading authors. Certainly, I have no personal acquaintance w/ them but I had given the links to where you could read their papers.

 

But since you don't actually do anything with your knowledge, it's not surprising that you don't see its cost.

I'm not doing anything w/ my knowledge? Wow. What do you call this? I am sharing it. But many people may not be comfortable it.

I don't care. I have nothing personal against them. I came here to share and talk about useful ideas, not about emotions and preferences of people.

 

You also lose out on all of the benefits that can be gained by specifically not understanding how a device works; there are many, and most of them surround not only speed but innovation. 

Of course, experience is the best teacher. If you created a device 99 times wrong, 1 time right, the 99 times you failed is valuable in-itself. But that is if you don't have existing theory - if you are a pioneer in your field of invention. Are you the pioneer? No you're not.

 

So basically, you're slow, uninspiring, and completely text-book about everything.  Which means that you should teach; and then your students should ignore you.

Maybe I am. So why waste your time telling me things that I might not understand, since, I am a very boring and dull person?

Again, why send your kids to school, if in the real world you are telling people to ignore their teachers? How can you live with that? I am interested in knowing. Save your money by not sending them to school.

 

But that's typical of most in your position.  So good luck.

That could apply to you, too.

 

Thank you for wishing me luck, though. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've said that without Google, you can't figure what something is.  I could tell you that I mis-spelled it, or I could tell you that there's more to knowledge than Google.  Perhaps you could ask a human being, and do some actual research on your own -- some real research, not just a search engine.  But in the end, this is the great example of your worldly understanding.  You don't know what something is, and you don't know where to find out, and you can't think of where to look beyond Google.

 

Now, back to your calculator.  Ever use your calculator for trigonometry?  Ever ask for the sine or cosine of an angle?  Ever wonder how the calculator gives you that answer?  I bet you'd be amazed at how your calculator calculates the cosine of 63 degrees.  And since trigonometry was done long before calculators, I'll bet that you'd be stupified as to how trigonometry was done a few hundred years ago.

 

I didn't refer to the "cost of your advice" -- that's free because it's not worth much more.  I referred to "the cost of what you advise".  Learn the difference.  Read the sentence as many times as you must.  It's English, and small words at that, so I will not rephrase it.

 

You most definitely came here to share and talk about useful ideas.  You did not come here to apply those, nor inspire others to develop their own --  which is why you've managed to goad me into talking and sharing with you, and not into actually presenting useful code to others.

 

There are benefits to not understanding something that have nothing to do with making errors.  Not understanding something allows you to be free of repeating the same, shall we say inefficiencies.  Yes I am a pioneer in my field.  I entered a perfectly good existing field, and chose to make it better in a certain direction, because I saw it missing in others' interpretation of the same field.  Had I known why they did what they did (and still do), then I would not have been capable of guiding my own path.  If you ever choose to follow your own path, you'll discover that the benefits are no where near the beginning, and you never end up where you thought you'd be.  But you end up in a place that no one ever knew could exist.  And that's the pioneering part.

 

I don't believe in school -- the word is an accurate description of the process, which has zero educational context.  And school is free around here, so I'd save zero money by not sending my children to school (I don't own any young goats, by the way.).  But I never said that being taught by teachers and then ignoring them isn't a good thing.  In fact, if you read through my general context again, you'll note the opposite.  There's a skill to being able to ignore dumbass information, the repeated mistakes of others, the delusions followed by the masses, and the over-simplifications that come from incomplete tutorials.  Just as well, there are skills to be learned in verifying what's been taught to you, which parts are useful, and how you can be inspired to take things further, farther, or turn things around.  Those are the skills to be learned in school -- those, and how to become immune to illnesses that thrive in the enclosed proximities of indoor populations.

 

So why waste my time telling you things that you might not understand?  I think I've answered that question.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've said that without Google, you can't figure what something is.  I could tell you that I mis-spelled it, or I could tell you that there's more to knowledge than Google.  Perhaps you could ask a human being, and do some actual research on your own -- some real research, not just a search engine.  But in the end, this is the great example of your worldly understanding.  You don't know what something is, and you don't know where to find out, and you can't think of where to look beyond Google.

Oh, come on, man. Don't be like that. I'm sorry if I didn't fare well with google. So can you state the name of the author/proponents of the "erline table"? I am genuinely interested in learning about it. Please?

 

Now, back to your calculator.  Ever use your calculator for trigonometry?  Ever ask for the sine or cosine of an angle?  Ever wonder how the calculator gives you that answer?  I bet you'd be amazed at how your calculator calculates the cosine of 63 degrees.  And since trigonometry was done long before calculators, I'll bet that you'd be stupified as to how trigonometry was done a few hundred years ago.

Can't understand, and non-analogous.

 

I didn't refer to the "cost of your advice" -- that's free because it's not worth much more.  I referred to "the cost of what you advise".  Learn the difference.  Read the sentence as many times as you must.  It's English, and small words at that, so I will not rephrase it.

I am advising others to learn theory, to avoid mistakes. There is no guarantee however that you will not be mistaken if you knew theory. So why learn theory? That is for you to answer.

 

You most definitely came here to share and talk about useful ideas.  You did not come here to apply those, nor inspire others to develop their own --  which is why you've managed to goad me into talking and sharing with you, and not into actually presenting useful code to others.

I didn't offer code because I think the OP is already satisfied with what others had given. Or perhaps he solved it on his own.

 

There are benefits to not understanding something that have nothing to do with making errors.  Not understanding something allows you to be free of repeating the same, shall we say inefficiencies.  Yes I am a pioneer in my field.  I entered a perfectly good existing field, and chose to make it better in a certain direction, because I saw it missing in others' interpretation of the same field.  Had I known why they did what they did (and still do), then I would not have been capable of guiding my own path.  If you ever choose to follow your own path, you'll discover that the benefits are no where near the beginning, and you never end up where you thought you'd be.  But you end up in a place that no one ever knew could exist.  And that's the pioneering part.

 

I don't believe in school -- the word is an accurate description of the process, which has zero educational context.  And school is free around here, so I'd save zero money by not sending my children to school (I don't own any young goats, by the way.).  But I never said that being taught by teachers and then ignoring them isn't a good thing.  In fact, if you read through my general context again, you'll note the opposite.  There's a skill to being able to ignore dumbass information, the repeated mistakes of others, the delusions followed by the masses, and the over-simplifications that come from incomplete tutorials.  Just as well, there are skills to be learned in verifying what's been taught to you, which parts are useful, and how you can be inspired to take things further, farther, or turn things around.  Those are the skills to be learned in school -- those, and how to become immune to illnesses that thrive in the enclosed proximities of indoor populations.

 

So why waste my time telling you things that you might not understand?  I think I've answered that question.

I did not understand those string of words. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure -- but I'm not trying to judge it at all.  I'm trying to help people USE it.  That's where "ephemeral" knowledge becomes vitally important.

Let me be clear.

 

Think of a calculator. Can you really use it w/o knowledge in arithmetic?

 

Of course not. W/o such knowledge all you can do with the calculator is type silly words.

You can -- if someone else shows you how to use it correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure -- but I'm not trying to judge it at all.  I'm trying to help people USE it.  That's where "ephemeral" knowledge becomes vitally important.

Let me be clear.

 

Think of a calculator. Can you really use it w/o knowledge in arithmetic?

 

Of course not. W/o such knowledge all you can do with the calculator is type silly words.

You can -- if someone else shows you how to use it correctly.

 

How will they show you the correct way? Only if they use theory. That's how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, you should quote every post to which you reply.  In practice, you're rediculous to do so.  Look at what you just did.  You repeated the entire previous post.  That's literally retarded.

 

And someone can give you step by step directions on how to do something, without giving you any theory at all.  In case of fire, break glass.  Push the button to start the tractor.

 

In fact, I'd argue that all safety-instructions are done with zero safety.  In case of emergency, dial 9-1-1.

 

No why, no how, no if, on because.  Just do it.  And buy my shoes.  It works for marketing too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, you should quote every post to which you reply.  In practice, you're rediculous to do so.  Look at what you just did.  You repeated the entire previous post.  That's literally retarded.

 

And someone can give you step by step directions on how to do something, without giving you any theory at all.  In case of fire, break glass.  Push the button to start the tractor.

 

In fact, I'd argue that all safety-instructions are done with zero safety.  In case of emergency, dial 9-1-1.

 

No why, no how, no if, on because.  Just do it.  And buy my shoes.  It works for marketing too.

All right.

 

Completely irrelevant to the discussion. And somewhat ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.  You just learned, because I told you not to do something, and then you didn't do it.  I had to say it twice, but I don't think I gave you any theory.

To save time, and to end this senseless bickerings with you, I will reply to your posts only if you provide us

your sources/references/materials that will help us with "erline tables," w/c will hopefully shed light on the discussion about NULL.

 

Otherwise, replies to your posts will be fruitless and ill-conceived.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will they show you the correct way? Only if they use theory. That's how.

Any step-by-step instructions, giving you the entire solution as-is, etc. -- the correct way is the one that yields a solution, not one that yields an explanation to the solution.

 

As an aside, let's keep the name-calling to the schoolyards -- that's a violation of the ToS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so I give you the phoenetic spelling spelling of a term, and you aren't willing to go beyond Google.  Nice.

 

You see, I don't need to give a reference when I discuss something that's been around for 100 years, and used in probably 40% of business industries.  You're asking me to teach you about them, but you aren't willing to do the first step to figure out what they are.

 

But you did that quoting thing again.  If you can't learn that, then I don't see how you can learn the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so I give you the phoenetic spelling spelling of a term, and you aren't willing to go beyond Google.  Nice.

 

You see, I don't need to give a reference when I discuss something that's been around for 100 years, and used in probably 40% of business industries.  You're asking me to teach you about them, but you aren't willing to do the first step to figure out what they are.

 

But you did that quoting thing again.  If you can't learn that, then I don't see how you can learn the other.

 

Telling us that something exists, where we have evidence of the contrary, will not prove your point.

 

If you really want us to learn something, teach us about it, by pointing us to the first step.

 

Otherwise, you are misinforming us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any step-by-step instructions, giving you the entire solution as-is, etc. -- the correct way is the one that yields a solution, not one that yields an explanation to the solution.

What will be the basis for those "steps"? How will we know that the solution is correct? Only theory (e.g, axioms, theorems, proofs) will tell us. No other.

 

Yes, I agree that it is sometimes impossible to derive an explanation for a desirable solution. But by then, we can never be sure if the solution will work as we expected it to in other cases, all the time.

 

That is the value of theory, research: to determine the feasibility, to investigate the truth of a proposed solution.

 

It is a complete waste if we do not use the sound insights and findings of others.

 

Following steps w/o any basis is similar to walking an unknown path. There is a very high chance of going nowhere, or worst, being entirely lost - as my example suggests.

 

As an aside, let's keep the name-calling to the schoolyards -- that's a violation of the ToS.

I'm sorry if I did, but I don't think I did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My not helping you find something, is not misinformation.

 

And you have no evidence to the contrary, because you have no evidence at all.  Google is not all knowing, and you don't know how to search for something that you can't spell.  Sounds like a deficiency on your part.

 

I'm not interested in teach ing.  I'm not a teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.