Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light
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
It is not meaningless, it is devoid of substance. Vacuous, like the
1NF concept once it was fixed.
> > 1NF is redundant and supefluous.
> definition sound quite so, well, meaningless.
>
> 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.
> and talk about data in 2NF & 3NF without requiring them in the meaningless
> 1NF first?
Regards Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 13:05:10 CEST