Re: Normalisation

From: Jan Hidders <>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:03:07 GMT
Message-ID: <%reBe.144048$>

VC wrote:

> "Jan Hidders" <> wrote in message 
> news:FwWAe.143403$

>>VC wrote:
>>>"Jan Hidders" <> wrote in message
>>>>Ah, but now you are using the domain or relations, right? There is a
>>>>problem with that domain. It doesn't exist. The collection of all
>>>>relations is a proper class, and not a set, but domains have to be sets.
>>> The collection of all relations is most certainly a set, and therefore,
>>>a domain, domain being a synonym of set. The term "proper class"
>>>implies that you talk in terms of set theory other than ZF ( Zermelo -
>>>Fraenkel ) ). There is no need to do so for the reltional model unless
>>>you can show there is ;)
>>There is indeed no such need, unless of course you want to define the
>>domain of relations, which you cannot do in ZF.
> The onus of proof of such impossibility is squarely on your shoulders. 
> Please oblige (define a collection/domain of relations, within ZF, which 
> ain't a set).

Defining a collection of relations within ZF that is not a set, is neither here nor there.

  • Jan Hidders
Received on Wed Jul 13 2005 - 22:03:07 CEST

Original text of this message