Re: More on lists and sets
From: Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ucantrade.com.NOTHERE>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:57:33 -0800
Message-ID: <sjem22d3cqhfqhfijjsfhqvgv6vce2ou6o_at_4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:57:33 -0800
Message-ID: <sjem22d3cqhfqhfijjsfhqvgv6vce2ou6o_at_4ax.com>
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:31:19 GMT, "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I want to go into more detail, and I will in a later post, but there's
>something about this NFNF relation that intrigues me: you can't flatten it
>out without losing information, and I would invite comment on that. I would
Nah. It may take more relations, but so what?
>also invite suggestions on how to alter this scheme to eliminate the
>redundancy.
1, 2, 3, etc. NF?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko Received on Thu Mar 30 2006 - 03:57:33 CEST