Re: Stored fields ordered left to right

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:KPIHb.485562$Dw6.1423325_at_attbi_s02...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:bsn9kv$6vs$1_at_news.netins.net...
> >
> > Nope -- nothing insurmountable about it. It is a matter of language.
>
> I am sympathetic to your cause, but I am not optimistic about its
> chances for success. Still, nothing to lose, eh?
>
>
> > Would it sit OK with relational theorists if I refer to their def of
> > relation as "unordered relations" or "Codd relations"? I don't want to
call
> > them database relations because I'll be talking about databases that are
> > using mathematical (ordered) tuples as well. I'm sure I can make
something
> > up,. but I don't want the language to obscure the information.
>
> Since the current issue under discussion is how attributes are
> logically identified, something more like "relations with named
> attributes" might be useful. Probably that's too long, and "Codd
> relations" will have to do, though.
>
> Maybe it is useful to consider this from the standpoint of the tuple?

Dawn is an idiot. I suggest you ignore her.

Relations are relations. She is talking about physical representations of relations and not about relations themselves. She is too stupid to understand the difference between a thing and its picture. Received on Mon Dec 29 2003 - 06:12:59 CET