Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: vc <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 19 Oct 2006 18:48:55 -0700
Message-ID: <1161308935.400856.162960@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> "vc" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >JOG wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> As far as I understood from my school years, an operation just mapped
> >> one set of values to another. I remain unconvinced of the need for an
> >> operation upon a set to map to itself.
> >
> >f:SxS -> S is not "a set to map to itself". We are talking here about
>
> The page you suggested sure seems to say that though!

It's an odd interpretation. f:S -> S is 'a set to map to itself', but g:SxS -> S clearly is not. Received on Thu Oct 19 2006 - 20:48:55 CDT