# Re: relations aren't types?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:30:28 -0500

Message-ID: <r-SdnUoc6egUInmi4p2dnA_at_golden.net>

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:30:28 -0500

Message-ID: <r-SdnUoc6egUInmi4p2dnA_at_golden.net>

"Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbu95u1.nqi.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...

> Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net> 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