"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 - 15:30:28 CST
