Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF
Date: 15 Oct 2004 13:09:59 -0700
Message-ID: <3e68f717.0410151209.59904d7_at_posting.google.com>
"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<sNGdne8i4MF0X_LcRVn-sQ_at_comcast.com>...
> "Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3e68f717.0410141738.5a248ae2_at_posting.google.com...
>
> > Open any basic discrete mathematics textbook of your choosing. Next,
> > turn to the chapter on relations. I challenge you to produce an
> > example problem and solution where relational operators operate over
> > domains of set values, lists, or "non-simple types" with internals
> > exposed. I think you will find that almost all cases specify
> > relations over domains of elements - nothing more, nothing less.
> > Interestingly, this corresponds well with predicate and propositional
> > logic.
>
> ISTM that a textbook is going to begin with simple examples. If you are
> explaining relaional operators, for the first time,
> it seems to me that all the operands are goping to be sets of simple things.
> The absence of relations on domains of relations in introductory material
> doesn't prove that it isn't useful or powerful.
It shouldn't be that hard to produce an example or "proof" to demonstrate one's assertion, right?
>
> I concur. IMO, I've gotten more power, with less complexity out of the RDM,
> even through the stimgmatic lens of SQL, than out of any other single topic
> in IT. I think, but I'm not sure, that Date has the answer to the
> question you raise.
> Why haven't I read it yet? Becasue I haven't needed to.
I noticed that Date and Co. have been researching lot's of books on logic these days.
Regards,
Dan Received on Fri Oct 15 2004 - 22:09:59 CEST