Re: SQL, related records (quotes)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:34:08 +0200
Dan Guntermann wrote:
> "Stefan Rybacki" <stefan.rybacki_at_gmx.net> wrote in message
>>Dan Guntermann wrote: >> >>>"Stefan Rybacki" <stefan.rybacki_at_gmx.net> wrote in message >>>news:3i78t2Fk4c3tU1_at_individual.net... >>> >>> >>>>Dan Guntermann wrote: >>>>
>>>Deesn't non-symmetry simply mean there exists a tuple <child X, parent Y> >>>in hierarchies such that there is no corresponding tuple <child Y, parent >>>X> in hierarchies? This isn't the same as a universal quantifier. >>> >>>No. I still think anti-symmetry in conjunction with non-reflexive holds >>>here. Does the following meet the definition of anti-symmetry that you >>>state above? >> >>anti-symmetry + non-reflexifity = non-symmetry
> Ahh. I've seen formal definitions for this in terms of assymetric
> properties. Non-symmetric is new to me and seems awfully close to "not
> symmetric." It's not worth getting into quibbles over. I'll take your word
> for it.
Yes you are right, asymmetric is the correct word (but means exactly the same not symmetric), sorry didn't remember that word. Sorry.
> - Dan
Received on Sun Jun 26 2005 - 20:34:08 CEST