Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

Bob Badour wrote:
> Jon Heggland wrote:
> All of the above is syntax. You point to two different productions in
> the grammar and claim that only one can be an aggregate. However, this
> is not true. In both situations above, SUM is an aggregate function.

I don't dispute that; please pay attention. I'm saying that SUMMARIZE is not an aggregate operator; in particular, it is not SUM. SUMMARIZE produces a relation; SUM produces a number. Is your point that you actually want to use the same name for these two operations? Why?

All your arguments are just "Yes, it is!". It's like Monty Python's Argument Clinic. If you want me to understand your point of view, please respond to the concrete questions I ask you in other posts.

> As I said previously, you focused on form while Marshall and I focused
> on function.

As I have said, and as Marshall now agrees, you are talking about some GROUP that you have made up yourself, while I talk specifically about Tutorial D's GROUP. Trivially, if you define GROUP to be an aggregate operator, it *is* an aggregate operator. However, it is not the Tutorial D GROUP.
> Do you have a particular objection to the productions D&D chose in the
> grammar of their tutorial language? If so, which production(s)? How does
> changing the production(s) improve the language as a language? We might
> agree with you, and we might not.

Why do you keep bringing up this straw man? I have already said once that I don't object to Tutorial D's grammar!

-- 
Jon