Re: Logical = relational?
From: Mikito Harakiri <mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 8 May 2006 16:12:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1147129976.683566.19670_at_i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Date: 8 May 2006 16:12:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1147129976.683566.19670_at_i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
vc wrote:
> ... and more recently Andreka
> and Nemeti are associated with the algebraic logic field. Codd's RA
> is not much of an innovation in this respect, although it arguably
> appears to be more suitable for the RM than other algebraic
> approaches.
Thank you for the Andreka and Nemeti reference. On page 31 of their "Algebraic Logic" handbook they write: "defining composition of n-ary relations is complicated". Apparently the whole idea that there is an operation that generalizes both intersection and composition is not there. It is amaising how algebraic logic field has been developed in depth with such an awkward basis as cylindric set algebras. Received on Tue May 09 2006 - 01:12:56 CEST