Re: relations aren't types?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:30:28 -0500
Message-ID: <>

"Adrian Kubala" <> wrote in message
> Bob Badour <> schrieb:
> > [...] Thus "relation" refers to values of a generic type and not to a
> > specific type, per se. [...]
> I understand what a relation is. If anything, I'm fuzzy on the
> definition of "type".
> Consider the type "student" which is defined as as the set of tuples:
> {<"joe", "schmoe">, <"sally", "strauss">}. In what way is this not a
> type, or not a relation?

It is a relation and not a type as you allege--unless you care to show that some set of operations are uniquely defined for that set of tuples. Received on Sat Dec 20 2003 - 22:30:28 CET

Original text of this message