Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 2006 18:52:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1161309150.559820.242660_at_m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>


JOG wrote:
> There seems a very subtle point here which I am currently
> missing. Or perhaps the terminology is being used in two
> subtly different ways? Either way I am vexed, as from a
> certain angle you both appear to be right.

No you are not missing anything. As happens with terms and phrases in any study, they often take on multiple meanings and people like VC bitch about the definitions instead of focusing on their purpose: communication.

Any reasonable person would understand "binary operation" to mean "an operation with arity 2" if that is appropriate for the context. If they needed to be more precise they would state explicitly whatever properties they are interested in: closure, commutativity, associativity, etc. Or they might for example say "external" or "mixed" binary operation for X * Y -> Z with arbitrary types X, Y, and Z.

VC is off on the "closure" red-herring because his subconscious realized that without that /added assumption/ his arguments are full of shit.

Keith -- Fraud 6 Received on Fri Oct 20 2006 - 03:52:30 CEST

Original text of this message