You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The search functionality of Arches has a function:
Has Any Value
Has No Value
In principle if the card that this search function points at is single value, then asking for 'has any value' and 'has no value' should return results which = the total value. Because the sum of everything of one thing that has a property and everything of one thing that doesn't have a property = all the things. I explain this again below. Anyhow the search doesn't return this. So is this a bug or is there a weird logic of what has any value and no value means? It leads to a lack of trust in the results from the search because it doesn't add up.
Here is a real world example:
In this example the card is not multi cardinality, it is single cardinality and uses a concept list. So as far as I can process that means that that card has either a value in it or it doesn't. So I think it should create complementarity in search ie the sum of 'show me all with something' and 'show me all with nothing' should equal 'the sum of all those things'. If there are 1000 records and 600 have a value in that card then show me 'has any value' should produce 600 and logically (given that it is not a multicardinality card) the inverse show me 'has no value' should equal 400 and then the total of a and b should be 1000, ie the number of records in the system.
I created a spreadsheet with the results from a real system showing that the numbers don't work out that way. We end up with a difference of 73 fewer records than the total number of records for group when we sum the 'has any value', 'has no value' searches. Since it is single cardinality, classic logic says it either does or doesn't have a value. One inference one could make here is that the 73 records difference means there are 73 records that do and do not have a value. This might make sense in the multicardinality card setup situation but I don't see how it does in a non multi.
The search functionality of Arches has a function:
Has Any Value
Has No Value
In principle if the card that this search function points at is single value, then asking for 'has any value' and 'has no value' should return results which = the total value. Because the sum of everything of one thing that has a property and everything of one thing that doesn't have a property = all the things. I explain this again below. Anyhow the search doesn't return this. So is this a bug or is there a weird logic of what has any value and no value means? It leads to a lack of trust in the results from the search because it doesn't add up.
Here is a real world example:
In this example the card is not multi cardinality, it is single cardinality and uses a concept list. So as far as I can process that means that that card has either a value in it or it doesn't. So I think it should create complementarity in search ie the sum of 'show me all with something' and 'show me all with nothing' should equal 'the sum of all those things'. If there are 1000 records and 600 have a value in that card then show me 'has any value' should produce 600 and logically (given that it is not a multicardinality card) the inverse show me 'has no value' should equal 400 and then the total of a and b should be 1000, ie the number of records in the system.
I created a spreadsheet with the results from a real system showing that the numbers don't work out that way. We end up with a difference of 73 fewer records than the total number of records for group when we sum the 'has any value', 'has no value' searches. Since it is single cardinality, classic logic says it either does or doesn't have a value. One inference one could make here is that the 73 records difference means there are 73 records that do and do not have a value. This might make sense in the multicardinality card setup situation but I don't see how it does in a non multi.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ufSi6SBa_OkJhnIrTc4XICkyo7Fc50MrMCJPu8Y8C2Y/edit?usp=sharing
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: