Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:22:13 -0000
Message-ID: <Uq6dnai9mJn4_pffRVn-ig_at_pipex.net>
"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:36uj3nF54ob0kU1_at_individual.net...
> > > 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.
>
> 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! >
> Perhaps you are the next Christopher Columbus.
No. I am just repeating what many others, including Date and Darwen have written elsewhere. I haven't uttered a single original thought here. But I am happy to repeat some of what these people have pointed out to me because I have read Codd, and find nowhere that he says anything that contradicts them on this.
> 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...
The truth is not democratic.
Roy Received on Wed Feb 09 2005 - 20:22:13 CET