Neo wrote:
>>There is only redundancy if one of them can be ignored
>>without loss of information. You cannot.
>
> Below is approximately how XDb1 ignores the redundant "brown" strings
> that were in the place of ->2, ->3 and ->4 without loss of
> information.
I said "ignored" and not "ignored and replaced with an
information-equivalent data structure". What you have to show is that if
I give you the tuple ("Green", "Yellow", ???) you can derive what the
third string was. Only in that case was the third string in the original
tuple redundant. So, can you tell me what the third string in the
original was?
Received on Fri Jul 09 2004 - 12:06:45 CDT
