# Re: Proposal: 6NF

Date: 19 Oct 2006 07:21:12 -0700

Message-ID: <1161267672.316083.201330_at_i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Jan Hidders wrote:

[...]

> In fact, most mathematicians that I've talked to in my career on this

*> issue don't agree with you, and those are not only the mathematicians
**> that happen to work in my own department.
*

Are you saying that the mathematicians you talked to claim that the closure property under some operation is no longer required for, e.g. a group to be called a group ? Did those mathematicians attend a primary school where they might have learned that integers were invented in order for subtraction to be defined for all the numbers as opposed to natural numbers where this is not the case ? The only logical conclusion would be that you talked to impostors.

*>
*

> > The LSP holds because your subtype is ephemeral -- each time the LSP is

*> > violated you replace the subtype with its 'parent type'.
**>
**> We don't have to replace anything, since the integers were defined here
**> such that they are a subset of the reals.
**>
**> -- Jan Hidders
*

Received on Thu Oct 19 2006 - 16:21:12 CEST