Re: Database design
Date: 22 Feb 2006 12:51:51 -0800
Message-ID: <1140641511.838088.5240_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> Apparently, if a set cannot include proper ordering, then a proper
> ordering of n-elements must be reduced to n-sets? Nine players in the
> starting line-up require nine separate relations? or practically, nine
> separate tables?
See, this is the sort of thing that makes you look like a troll. I have told you several times that this requires *two* relations, but here you come up with nine. What are we to make of this? Why don't you seem to have read any of the previous posts, or be able to remember them? Why do you shift analogies with every post? Why do you not respond to the strong counterarguments that people provide?
Hypotheses I can think of:
1) The Neo Hypothesis. You don't actually care what other
people say--you're convinced you're right and everyone
else is wrong. And you're going to prove it to us via your
analogies.
2) The Learning Disability Hypothesis. You really want to know
more, but are not capable of understanding this material.
3) The Troll Hypothesis. You are just asking these questions
over and over because you enjoy the exasperation of the
people responding.
My current working hypothesis is 1).
Marshall Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 21:51:51 CET