Re: A Normalization Question

> But then these references or pointer values are redundant, so to ensure no
> redundancy in these values, you must create a new set of pointers or
> references using a new alphabet. But wait! Even this new set of
> pointers/or references have values, both in terms of digits and as a
> sequence, that are needlessly replicated, so a new set is needed to point to
> the pointers that pointed to the pointers that point to a single value.

References aren't within the scope of normalizing things in a db because they are independent of the things being represented. The actual implementation of references is a hardware issue, not a logical one. On some hardware (ie PCs), references to the same thing probably do have the same values. On other hardware (ie brain?), references to the same thing are likely different paths to the same neuron(s) and don't have no duplicate "values".

In an ideal db (ie brain?) the user isn't aware of the hardware values that may or may not be associated with a reference. Received on Fri Jul 09 2004 - 07:05:47 CEST