Re: A Normalization Question

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b45d3ad.0407140955.3ee4189f_at_posting.google.com...
> > Making up your own rules to prove your point does not prove your point.
>
> Whether I or you makes rules is not important, but how well do they
> allow us to achieve certains goals is. Your/RM's rules don't allow you
> to recognize that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' is redundant because you
> need to fit values in a certain/special way in the attributes of
> tuples. My data model (TM) recognizes that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown'
> is redundant without as many certain/special constraints. The net
> result is that the string 'brown' is subject to update anomaly in RM
> but not in TM.
>
> > Besides, you know damn well that we are talking about relational theory.
>
> I am talking about representing things in a db using any model and RM
> is but one limited method of doing so.
>
> > > What I am pointing out is that a db containing the string 'brown'
> > > three times has redundant data and can result in update anomaly.
> >
> > And it has been proven uncounted times that this statement is not
correct.
>
> ID Person
> 1 brown
> 2 brown
> 3 brown
>
> I am wondering, if you/RM fail to see that the string 'brown' (which
> names three different persons) is redundant above also and is subject
> to the same update anomaly?

Your entire argument is based on a false premise, which you keep repeating. Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 21:52:13 CEST