Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:58:18 -0500
Message-ID: <clk0eh$1vs$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:417d2d92.21430625_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:57:04 GMT, "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> A RELATION is, by definition, in 1NF.
> >
> >To effectively apply a "by definition" argument, the definition
> >used has to be one that pretty much everyone agrees on. This
> >is not the case here; the definition you use is a minority opinion.
>
> Mathematical correction does not depend on the opinion of the
> majorities. Maths are not democratic.

But definitions in mathematics do differ from one person to the next. Definitions in mathematics are not, themselves, mathematics but language. But let's say that you are tied to generally accepted mathematical definitions -- could you provide me your mathematical definition of relation and 1NF? I have one for relation, but not one that is mathematically sound for 1NF.

> The "classic" definition of 1NF is flawed independently of the number
> of people that agree or disagree.

I'd have to agree with others that definitions are useful or not, agreed upon or not, rather than being correct or not. What is your definition of barbeque? --dawn

>
> Regards
Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 00:58:18 CEST

Original text of this message