Re: SQL, related records (quotes)

From: Stefan Rybacki <stefan.rybacki_at_gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:34:08 +0200
Message-ID: <3i8ap0Fk6vh2U1@individual.net>

Dan Guntermann wrote:
> "Stefan Rybacki" <stefan.rybacki_at_gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:3i80bkFk955oU1_at_individual.net...
>

>>Dan Guntermann wrote:
>>
>>>"Stefan Rybacki" <stefan.rybacki_at_gmx.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:3i78t2Fk4c3tU1_at_individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan Guntermann wrote:
>>>>

>
> <snip>
>

>>>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 - 13:34:08 CDT