Re: Relation Definition

>> You defined them as pairs and in a set there can be two pairs with the
>> same first component.

Yes, and it was imprecise. That is why I posted the exact definition of a header in the second paragraph. However I do agree that some earlier versions of Date's definition did not make that distinction explicit.

>> It is not "an interpretation", it is the standard definition of a tuple
>> as used by mathematicians.

Are you contradicting your reference which blatantly states it as an interpretation? Even being a standard definition, its usage may not obviated in a relational definition. See, you stated the usage of n-dimensional notion as inappropriate while defining relations and some justification for that statement would be helpful.

-- 
Anith