Re: A Normalization Question
From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:55:23 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2004.07.13.18.55.48.643125_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
>
> Yes, and as I explained before, your/RM's definition/theory is limited
> because it doesn't allow you to recognize that the string 'brown' is
> redundant in the following tuple:
>
> 1, "brown", "brown", ???
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:55:23 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2004.07.13.18.55.48.643125_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:00:45 -0700, Neo wrote:
>> Yes, and as I explained before, if I give you the tuple >> (1,"brown","brown",???) and you cannot know what the third string is, then >> the third string is by definition not logically redundant. Since this >> holds for all three strings it follows that there is no logical redundancy >> here and hence there is nothing to be normalized here.
>
> Yes, and as I explained before, your/RM's definition/theory is limited
> because it doesn't allow you to recognize that the string 'brown' is
> redundant in the following tuple:
>
> 1, "brown", "brown", ???
- Jan Hidders