Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:27:50 -0500
Message-ID: <clob9l$d8b$>

"Alfredo Novoa" <> wrote in message
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> > > A subset of the product of n sets.
> >
> > Good. At least you don't through the kitchen sink into the definition
> > Date and others do. Or did you think that everyone agreed what a
> > 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.
> >
> But only accidentally :)
> > ABSOLUTELY!! OK, so who in the database world thinks that there is
> > 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
> > 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.

Then you are missing something as on this particular topic (I'm sure not all) I am taking great care to be rigidly mathematical. I've been working on 1-3NF, ignoring 4-6 until I have figured out what to do with these. It appears to me that 1-3 can be removed completely from the mixture in favor of BCNF without any loss to the discipline. Do you agree?

And as for Bush, I was a Kerry delegate to the state of Iowa. It is even more damaging to keep GWB in office than 1-3NF on the books the way they are now. Cheers! --dawn Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 16:27:50 CEST

Original text of this message