# Re: Little question for RDM theoristes

Date: 16 Jun 2006 06:27:40 -0700

Message-ID: <1150464460.093257.177660_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

I am aware of that definition and I do not quite agree with it because it leads to confusion...

if relation1 = (set of relvalues)1 of domain1 and relation2 = (set of relvalues)1 of domain1

Erwin wrote:

> > Your question implies relations = relvalues...which if I follow this

*> > false premise reasonning would lead to relations that have similar
**> > relvalues being equal which is totally false...2 relvar with same
**> > relvalues are NOT necessarily equal.
**>
**> TTM Chapter 4, RM prescription 10 :
**>
**> "A relation value (relation for short) ..."
**>
**> Therefore at least to Chris Date, 'relations=relvalues' is most
**> certainly true. I'd say that's a strong indication of just how much
**> "false premise" there is within.
**>
**> > This question is totally irrelevant if you consider a relation as being
**> > equal to a relvalue...
**>
**> This question is not irrelevant at all since the heading is regarded as
**> the definition of the applicable relation type. And for values to be
**> equal, they must most certainly be of the exact same type, inheritance
**> issues notwithstanding of course.
*

Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 15:27:40 CEST