Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:43:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4bq6g.122480$7a.57353@pd7tw1no>

Jon Heggland wrote:
> paul c wrote:
> ...
> Uh... If you group all the attributes in a relation, you get a relation
> with a single attribute (the type of which is the same as of the
> original relation) and a single tuple (containing the original
> relation)?
> ...

That's what I guessed. Also guess that when you group on none of them, the empty set is the identity attribute set for group.

> ...

>>I know that to put it loosely, ttm
>>says they are the same when they have the same value,

>
>
> When they ARE the same value.
> ...

Maybe talking at cross-purposes, eg. what's in the system versus what's in our intentions.

>

>>so the relation of
>>'integer 3' doesn't have the same value as the relation of 'integer 6
>>divided by integer 2' as far as the system is concerned 

>
>
> I don't understand this---please use more standard notation if you want
> to denote relations---but I think you are wrong. The integer denoted by
> the expression "6/2" is the same as the one denoted by "3".
> ...

But the relation denoted by one isn't the same as the other?

>
> Heh. Yes, I also find TTM list more intimidating; I have never posted
> anything except complaints about quoting. :) I'd say there are people
> more ignorant than you posting there, though.

About all I can say about that is that I probably find it more intimidating than you do. This is my only solace in a world where I know less than some and am also less ignorant than the everybody else!

p Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 11:43:44 CDT