Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:56:05 -0500
Message-ID: <36uj3nF54ob0kU1_at_individual.net>
"Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
news:7_mdnXc6xJzQZpTfRVn-tQ_at_pipex.net...
> "Alan" <not.me_at_rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:36mrv7F52lmo2U1_at_individual.net...
> >
> > "Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
> > news:9LCdna8B3LW2VJjfRVn-rg_at_pipex.net...
> > > "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:h6da01hfpdq3f6fg384g5l0t5dd7dd1std_at_4ax.com...
> > > > On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:37:17 -0500, "Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Nothing has changed.
> > > >
> > > > It has changed, but it seems that you are not aware of that.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 1NF does not "mean values are simple or indivisible".
> >
> > Well, then Elmasri and Navathe are confused, as I quoted directly from
the
> > book (which is used in many leading universities).
>
> Then Elmasri and Navathe are confused. (And I don't care how many
> universities use a book. Repetition does not make truth out of error.)
>
> > I am not the one who is confused. You just redefined "atomic" as meaning
> > "divisible".
>
> No, I made no attempt to define atomic at all. I said Codd used it as a
> shorthand for "I don't care if it's divisible or not". Since he certainly
> never defined it, that is all he could mean.
>
> > It Codd intended 1NF to include divisible attributes, he would
> > have used the word "divisible", not "atomic".
>
> No, because he didn't care one way or the other. Saying attributes are
> atomic was just his way of turning his back on an uninteresting (to him)
> distraction.
>
> Roy
>
>
I see. You were a friend of Codd's and he discussed the _real_ meaning of what he wrote with you. How fortunate you are to have this exclusive insight! Or, I see. Everyone else is confused, and you are not. A book now in the 4th edition, reviewed by the authors and editors, and accepted by a clear majority are incorrect and you are correct. PhD Professors in universities who use this book are confused and you are not. I see...
Perhaps you are the next Christopher Columbus. Received on Wed Feb 09 2005 - 14:56:05 CET