Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:43:18 +0200
Message-ID: <vp8bm0dp0hc6peggetarfubrb4i5phgsm1_at_4ax.com>
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:07:12 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
>I don't claim that it's the last word on the subject. I do claim it's the
>first word on the subject.
I never said the contrary. What I meant is that it is so early that even the name is different.
But the important thing is the high level of fuzziness and confusion of that primitive formulation.
>> A modern formulation of the 1NF could be something like this:
>>
>> All relations are in 1NF.
>
>So how come you said the following, "1NF is the same thing as always, but
>it was traditionally
>misunderstood." in this same thread. Which is it?
It is a correct formulation.
Any formulation that does not match with this, is simply wrong.
>> >I may be imprecise in my wording. Codd tried to be precise in his
>wording.
>> >I believe he succeeded.
>>
>> You are wrong. He failed and it is explained on the books.
>
>There you go again! To you, everything is either perfect or a failure.
Everything not, but maths work in that way, and we are talking about maths.
2 + 2 = 4: is perfect
2 + 2 = any other thing: is a failure.
Maths are not democratic nor politically correct in the american way :-)
The issues about 1NF are now well understood, and it is well known that the primary cause of the past confusion was the fuzziness of the "atomic" term.
I am only repeating what I readed on the books.
>> >> For instance: Are strings simple or complex?
>> >
>> >It depends. From the point of view of the DBMS, they are simple. From
>the
>> >point of view of the SUBSTRING function, they are complex. That doesn't
>> >mean that the definitions are vague.
>>
>> Your point is very weak and fuzzy.
>
>It's not weak and fuzzy at all.
It is even ridiculous:
The meaning of "simple domain" is very precise and it depends on the point of view we are using X-D
> If you can't tell the difference between a
>DBMS and a SUBSTRING function, I can't help you.
I know the difference, what I don't know is what on hell the "point of view of the SUBSTRING function" is :-)
Regards Received on Thu Oct 07 2004 - 22:43:18 CEST