> NULL is the absence of a value. It has no meaning in algebra. Null is a value in its own right. If null is added to e.g. the type of numbers, then it had bet

> NULL is the absence of a value. It has no meaning in algebra. Null is a value in its own right. If null is added to e.g. the type of numbers, then it had better be given meaning (i.e. semantics). > You cannot do anything mathematically with a NULL value so it always results in a NULL output Returning null if any input is null seems reasonable, but again this is not true with SQL SUM: SUM [1, null] = 1. > Where is the inconsistency You seriously cannot see an inconsistency? Are you trolling? > It seems you want the database to automatically assume 0 for NULL Where on earth did you get that idea? You are defending the behaviour of SQL SUM, not me! I've already told you, I don't want coercions.