Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:43:09 -0500
Message-ID: <clkdk6$abl$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:e4330f45.0410251833.1244f9cc_at_posting.google.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:<clk0eh$1vs$1_at_news.netins.net>...
>
> > But definitions in mathematics do differ from one person to the next.
>
> Of course not. Prime numbers are the same for everybody.

So we were able to get many terms on which everyone agrees. We do not have the same use of all terms in mathematics.

> > could you provide me your mathematical definition of relation
>
> A subset of the product of n sets.

Good. At least you don't through the kitchen sink into the definition as Date and others do. Or did you think that everyone agreed what a "relation" is too?

> > and 1NF?
>
> A property of the relations that consists in that the elements of a
> set are elements of a set.

Thanks! That is at least a definition. I've never heard a mathematical definition sound quite so, well, meaningless.

> > I have one for relation, but not one that is mathematically sound
> > for 1NF.
>
> 1NF is redundant and supefluous.

GOOD -- WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!
> > I'd have to agree with others that definitions are useful or not
>
> Unuseful does not mean incorrect. The concept of 1NF is unuseful.

ABSOLUTELY!! OK, so who in the database world thinks that there is anything useful in talking about data in 1NF? Are we ready to ditch it completely and talk about data in 2NF & 3NF without requiring them in the meaningless 1NF first? --dawn Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 04:43:09 CEST

Original text of this message