This content has been marked as final. Show 385 replies
I'm giving you 24 hours G R A T I S to make me F O O L !!!I see no real need, that is the only thing you have managed to conclusively prove so far in this thread.
Maybe we are both confused with the term "equivalence". I consider that "toYou are confused because you are obviously making up the meaning of words as you go along to suit your blinkered point of view.
be equivalent" is not the same as "to be equal to" (operator "="). For that
reason, a better word than "equivalence" might be "analogy".
Wouldn't your time be better spent finding a database you are capable of understanding and learning to use without whining and leave Oracle alone?
...whereas "+" means "carry out a bitwise addition of these binary values"Here appears to be a glitch...(physical level <> logical level).
I can perfectly realize and "see" analogy between arithmetic operation and concatenation operation (don't use "equivalence" since it appears to make confusion), and thus between the "+" and the "||" operators (the analogy in the sense of their meaning).
But it's not so important for our discussion. Maybe we see different pictures in our heads.
Your 24 hours expired. I cannot see your disproof .I think you were given the proof you asked for but you claimed to have forgotten it less than four hours later, despite a reminder in the meantime.
Here is another reminder, hopefully you will be able to retain it a bit longer than a few hours this time.
Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
I would kindly ask those who have difficulties in differentiating between their arses and heads and are missing the elementary home education and decency, such as obviously Mr/Mrs/Miss "3360", not to expand this thread with nonsenses and petties, since I am not willing to respond them.
not to expand this thread with nonsenses and petties, since I am not willingMaybe if everyone simply responds with a link to the post with the proof that Albert is trying to forget and ignore he will either have to acknowledge it or go away.
to respond them.
those who have difficulties in differentiating between their arses and headsYou obviously have no trouble making the differentiation as you have one in the other.
Personally, I don't know who "Flying Spoon" is...
However, you have already been disproved. (maybe you are the one Flying over the thread, not reading properly)
There is a difference between making an analogy in your head, and there being a formal equivalence.
It seems to only similarity between "+" arithemtic operator and "||" concatenation operator is in the syntax.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the logical-physical abstraction.
It seems to me that you have too many words and not enough comprehension of any of them.
I'm giving you 24 hours G R A T I S to make me F O O L !!!I don't think there's any need for that. Not just that it's rude, but you've done a good enough job of making yourself a FOOL as it is.
I can perfectly realize and "see" analogy between arithmeticOk, let's leave the nitty gritty out of it.
operation and concatenation operation (don't use "equivalence"
since it appears to make confusion), and thus between the "+"
and the "||" operators (the analogy in the sense of their
"+" means "add values"
"||" means "append/concatenate strings"
There's no equivalence, no analogy, no anything that is the same between them. They are both different, serve different purposes and work on different datatypes. You just can't make any comparison between them both unless you've lost your brain. It would be like saying a banana has an analogy with a chair because I can sit on both, however the chair is really for sitting on, whilst the banana should really be eaten.
Oh, and I think this link may help you...
Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
Like the NULLS, you can insist all you like. You're still wrong.
> I can perfectly realize and "see" analogy between arithmetic operation and concatenation operation.
Maybe we see different pictures in our heads.
Lemme try a visual analogy... Hmmm.. how about this?
It is like you you seeing a mental picture of Jenna Jameson and describing to the forum the difference between a zero length bikini and a no (null) bikini that she is/is not wearing.
Why not rather just enjoy the view than argue the nature of the "no-bikini"?
Call me old-fashioned but I prefer a zero-size bikini. I like to leave something to the imagination.
See William, it was right thing I used "arses and heads". If I used "arses and elbows", the "3360" would still be buzzing. In this way he recognized himself immediatelly.
I believe Scott already gave you a proof of whateverScott proved NOTHING. Scott was joking. Except that, it was not Scott who was supposed to disprove my conclusion.
it was you were on about in this post: