Re: Proposal: 6NF

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> "vc" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> You were the one who pointed out the page. You did read it first
> to make sure it said what you wanted, right?

OK, what did you mean when you wrote: "The page you suggested sure seems to say that though!". What exactly do you mean by "that" ? Is it your interpretation that the page I pointed to denies the assertion that a binary operation is "a set to map to itself" ? If so and therefore you agree with what I wrote, what did you mean by "though" ?  If you, on the other hand, are of the opinion that the reference confirms that a binary operation is "a set to map to itself", you may want to reread the page and think about what it says.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
> Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
> I have preferences.
> You have biases.
> He/She has prejudices.
Received on Fri Oct 20 2006 - 05:14:31 CEST