Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

"Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.com> wrote in message news:Kg0id.6107$wP1.5011_at_trnddc09...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:cm93fd$g11$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > "erk" <eric.kaun_at_pnc.com> wrote in message
> > news:1099431388.630616.174500_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> [snip]
> >
> > It makes sense to bring it up since I have yet to PROVE all of my
> > concerns.
> > I have proven, I think, that 1NF as currently implemented by most
software
> > developers (the old version of 1NF) has no mathematical basis.
>
> What is this proof, pray tell. I've asked for a demonstration already
where
> attributes of a relation are anything less than an elements in the
> mathematical or logical sense when operated upon by relational operators.
>

I think the following has been demonstrated beyond reasonable debate:

That not all relations (or collections of relations) are in what Codd called "normal form" in the 1970 paper.
That some relations (or collections of relations) are in "normal form". That Codd never claimed a mathematical basis for reuiring "normal form" in the relational data model.

That what Codd called "first normal form" in the followup papers on data normalization (1972, 1973) is the same thing as nroaml form in the 1970 paper.

That, in the only formal definition Codd ever gave of frist normal form (called 1NF nowadays), atomicity of attribute values is an essential part of the definition.

That the atomicity requirement of 1NF is not part of the formal definition of the term "relation" in mathematics.

That Date revised the definition of 1NF so as to remove the atomicity requirement. (don't know the year).
That this revision was based on the pragmatics of IT, not the mathematics of relations, since 1NF was not a requirement based on mathematics.

I say all this as one who is NOT convinced of Dawn's opinion that 1NF (a la Codd) was an obstacle to greater progress through the 1080s and 1990s. Or of her opinion that database constraints are counterproductive or submarginal.
These remain to be shown.

But the fundamental question of whether mathematical relations hinge on 1NF a la Codd has been dealt with, as far as I can see.

My point is that we have an alternative to going around in circles, debating the same old issues with the same old arguments every time around. Received on Wed Nov 03 2004 - 23:39:11 CET