Re: Base Normal Form
Date: 12 Jul 2005 08:19:09 -0700
Message-ID: <1121181549.042672.249540_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
dawn wrote:
> [a lot of stuff]
Dawn,
Uh, wow.
I don't *want* to ditch the word relation; I don't have another
word that comes close. "Function" doesn't cut it. I also
don't see any particular conflict or even a difference between
mathematics and computer science; I consider CS to be a branch
And what's wrong with "a subset of the product of sets?" That's not all that complicated. It's no more complicated than "a mapping from one set to another."
> > It doesn't have to be required, it usually follows from the fact that
> > the relation is a set.
>
> You lost me here. How do you define a candidate key in mathematics so
> that every set must have one?
A "set" is a collection of *unique* members. Because of that word "unique" there has to be a candidate key.
Marshall Received on Tue Jul 12 2005 - 17:19:09 CEST