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", ???
I have no problem with recognizing that there are multiple occurrences of
the same data element in that data structure. If that is how you
define then then, sure, there is by definition redundancy here. But
normalization is not concerned with removing that type of redundancy and
there are good reasons why this is so.
Received on Tue Jul 13 2004 - 13:55:23 CDT
