Re: A Normalization Question

Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article <gMzHc.180582$Q%4.8677405_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jan Hidders wrote:
>

>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>>>You keep treating redundancy and normalization as if
>>>they were the same things; they're not.
>>
>>Well, the term "redundancy" has a pretty well-specified meaning in 
>>normalization theory. The informal version of that definition is as follows:
>>
>>"A certain part of that data structure is said to be redundant if you 
>>cannot remove it without losing information."

Oops, Yes I did. Thank you.

> Anyway, Neo appears to be insistent on defining
> normalization as "some process on the database which removes redundancy";
> unfortunately, such a definition makes it virtually impossible to make
> general statements about "normalization" above and beyond the definition
> itself.

Well, I would argue that this depends upon your definition of redundancy.

• Jan Hidders