Re: What to call this operator?

In article <1120237981.724501.39290_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com says...
> > Nice, but is it not also so that A >= x y z and A <= X Y Z for A(x,y)?
> > Which makes that notation less useful....
>
> No, A <= X Y Z is false:

Ah, yes of course. I was confused by the somewhat counterintuitive fact that A <= B implies that the attributes of B is a subset of the attributes of A. :) (I hope I got that right.)

But my point has still a little validity: It is not enough to know that A >= x y to know that the attributes of A are x and y; we also need to know that A <= X Y.

> A >= x y z formula can be interpreted that the A(x,y) predicate can be
> in fact be written as A(x,y,z)!

This does not make sense to me.

-- 
Jon