Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dcec01d400g2bs8s248dv4d0or9bhhho64_at_4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:35:09 -0000, "Roy Hann"
> <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
>
> >> > 1NF means (and has always meant) that all values are
> >> >atomic (simple, indivisible)
> >>
> >> Atomic is not a precise word. We can not base any precise definition
> >> on that term.
> >
> >Alan is confused, but your comment, erudite though it is, is irrelevant.
>
> I have to disagree, because my coment was intended to clarify Alan's
> confused post.
>
> I can accept that my comment was not very precise, but not that is was
> irrelevant.
>
> >1NF does not "mean values are simple or indivisible". It just says that
for
> >the purpose of the relational theory, the divisibility (or internal
> >structure) of values of a given type is of no interest or use within the
> >theory. The theory does not make use nor reference to the internal
> >structure of a value of any type.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The theory therefore does not need to
> >define what atomic means.
>
> But it needs to use precise terms, and atomic is not.
>
> The proof is that the overwhelming part of the people (professors
> included) think that 1NF means: "values are simple and indivisible"
>
> > The term "atomic" is a just a narrative
> >short-hand that Codd used to say, "That's stuff I don't care about, so
> >forget about it from now on as you read this paper."
>
> But it was a very unfortunate term election that is causing a lot of
> confusion even 35 years later.
>
> > I can't think of any
> >other theory where a precise definition is demanded for things that are
> >*intended* not to be discussed.
>
> But the formulation of a theory must be precise, and it must not lead
> to massive misconceptions which have important implications in what is
> discussed.
>
> >There is nothing in RT that *prevents* values from being divisible, there
> >never was, and it would plainly be stupid to want it that way.
>
> Agreed
>
>
> Regards

There seems to be only a very few people with this "massive misconception". This leads a rational person to conclude that these are the ones who are confused. Perhaps you are the new Christopher Columbus. Received on Mon Feb 07 2005 - 16:11:33 CET