Re: terminology

Cimode wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Most basically, a relation is a subset of a product of
> > sets.
>
> What the hell is a product of sets? sets of what? product
> is exclusively an arithmetic operation. Which one are
> refering to?

Impressive, this idiot has never heard of Cartesian product it seems. Nor I guess any of the many other non-arithmetic notions of product. Well, maybe it was another Commode language barrier moment.

> What allows to qualify a relation as a subset of the
> exclusive output arithmetics operations?

He isn't talking about arithmetic, moron.

> As an analogy, do you define a recipient according to its
> content? Do you define a glass of water according to
> water...Both are totally independent. Water is H2O and
> glass of water is mainly Carbon

LMAO. With that and your "product" foolishness, you have set back your /crusade/ to "prove" you are smart by at least a year or so. First, an English lesson for you. It's "carbon" not "Carbon". More importantly, neither water nor glass is "mainly" carbon, moron, by any definition of "mainly". You stepped into chemistry and blew your foot off, idiot.

• Keith --