Re: object algebra

> > Then how do you explain that in TDM/XDb1, things are normalized down
> > to atomic symbols (a, b, c ...) where as a similar level of
> > normalization in RDM is impractical?
>
> Because this process can only be called "normalization" through a vigorous
> application of the imagination.

Or a failure to understand that atomic symbols (ie ^, *, &, 0, 1, 2, a, b, c,...) are infact atomic. And also a failure to apply normalization (process of replacing duplicates with ref to original) until it is no longer possible.

> (And speaking of impracticality, what is it that led you to declare that
> a database consisting of many "two-columned" tables is impractical?)

Having joined the thread near its 200th posting, your understanding is slightly off context. I do not claim a db consisting of 2-col tableS is impractical [insert Mark Twain].

I claimed that, for some applications, in order to avoid NULLs, one would have to resort to generic modelling, which in the extreme case results in a db with just one 2-col table, and is impractical. If one implements www.xdb1.com/Example/Ex076.asp they should see that pattern emerging. After 223 postings, still no one has. Will you be the first? Received on Thu Mar 04 2004 - 15:08:40 CST