Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: 27 Oct 2004 04:05:10 -0700
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0410270305.7b219502_at_posting.google.com>


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:<clkdk6$abl$1_at_news.netins.net>...

> > 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?

Of course everyone who knows what he is talking about agrees what a relation is.

Often there are several ways to correctly define a term.

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

It is not meaningless, it is devoid of substance. Vacuous, like the 1NF concept once it was fixed.

> > 1NF is redundant and supefluous.
>
> GOOD -- WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!
But only accidentally :)

> ABSOLUTELY!! OK, so who in the database world thinks that there is anything
> useful in talking about data in 1NF?

The ones who stay with the flawed formulation.

> Are we ready to ditch it completely
> and talk about data in 2NF & 3NF without requiring them in the meaningless
> 1NF first?

We don't need to require 1NF because it is always there.

Your reasoning way helps me to understand why Bush and Schwartzenegger are where they are.

Regards Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 13:05:10 CEST

Original text of this message