Re: A

In article <Wc5Ae.141446$fP5.7357492_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>, jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be says...
> I'll give another hint. Since unary relations are similar to sets you
> can get Cantor's paradox.

Gee, thanks.

> > In that case, I redefine my unnest_string so that IN is a RELATION { K :
> > INTEGER, A : STRING }, OUT is a RELATION { K : INTEGER, B : CHARACTER },
> > and the attribute name argument is not needed.
> >
> > Now, my operator is perfectly fine, isn't it? But has STRING now become
> > non-atomic?
>
> I think the definition is quite clear on that.

This mode of argument is rather tiresome. I do not find you clear at all. Any reason why you can't say "yes" or "no"?

Would anybody else care to jump in and try to summarise dr. Hidder's arguments?

> >>>Can you give me any examples of trouble arising from this? And an
> >>>explanation why the relational operators do not run into paradoxes? Or
> >>>do they?
> >>
> >>They are not functions defined over domains.
> >
> > That much is obvious, given your definitions above. But wasn't your
> > point that this leads to problems and paradoxes?
>
> No, redefining the notion of domain would.

So me constructing new relational operators is just fine, just as long as I don't use the words "function" and "domain"? You've lost me several times over.

-- 
Jon