Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:21:14 -0400
Message-ID: <pMqdnWd5NLd0WCDdRVn-jg_at_comcast.com>

"Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:pan.2004.06.01.20.20.53.966095_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...
> Actually a table is not a relation, for it contains
> duplicates, while a relation is a set, therefore excluding duplicates.

I think that what you meant to say is "for it might contain duplicates". I apologize for being so picky about tenses here, but it affects the meaning.

A table can represent a relation provided that duplicates and NULLs are appropriately contolled. Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 14:21:14 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: mountain man: "Re: The RM, Newtonian mechanics, algrebra and incompleteness"
Previous message: Lennart Jonsson: "Re: Nested Coalescing possible in SQL?"
Maybe in reply to: Dieter Nöth: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
In reply to Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra: "Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)"
Next in thread: mountain man: "Re: It don't mean a thing ..."

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message