Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: relations aren't types?

Re: relations aren't types?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:36:12 -0500
Message-ID: <7LednbSL0rosnm2iRVn-hQ@golden.net>


"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:uwPHb.66027$VB2.129057_at_attbi_s51... > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:J8ednZnlZMCYJ3KiRVn-tA_at_golden.net...
> > "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> > news:cNKHb.64146$VB2.125134_at_attbi_s51...
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPOdnepoTvzeP3OiRVn-hA_at_golden.net...
> > > >
> > > > Sorry. Time is just as atomic as any other type including relation
> > types.
> > >
> > > I'm not clear on why types have to be atomic. I have not seen a
> > > reason for it.

> >
> > It is not a question of whether they have to be. They just are. The
value 5
> > does not change when we represent it as 5+0j where j is the imaginary
unit.
>
> I agree that type integer is atomic.

The point is all types are atomic. A value is just a point in some space. It doesn't matter whether the value is 5+0j or 5+10j or a relation. Received on Mon Dec 29 2003 - 04:36:12 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US