Re: Database design
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:00:17 -0800
Message-ID: <aecqv1l6dhtl49f6dk5utrqbgbo6qpvb0s_at_4ax.com>
"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
No, it suggests that I did not agree that a set possessing order did
not possess an order, and further wondered what it might take to
satisfy those seeking to maintain such definition in the face of a
proper ordering. N-elements to n-sets?
But you're backing to the same objection, the same diversions, and the
accusations?
You're still trolling? It makes _you_ look a troll, that is.