Re: RM and definition of relations/tuples
From: Martin Zapf <Martin_Zapf_at_gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:43:33 +0100
Message-ID: <dm420d$aj1$1_at_online.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:43:33 +0100
Message-ID: <dm420d$aj1$1_at_online.de>
> Don't quite understand your question. Unnamed perspective is formally
> dependent on the order of the attributes. Relational operators,
> however, are order agnostic. Cartesian product, for example, wouldn't
> be associative and commutative, if we take attribute order literally.
>
My explicit quesition is: What is the basic and universal definition/concept/idea behind these 2 definitions? This two definitions must have a common basis if they stand for the same thing. What is that common basis exactly without any ambiguity? Received on Thu Nov 24 2005 - 10:43:33 CET