Re: Basic question?What 's the key if there 's no FD(Functional Dependencies)?
Date: 6 Nov 2006 09:47:20 -0800
Message-ID: <1162835240.459845.262170_at_f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NENASHI, Tegiri wrote:
> vldm10 wrote:
> > NENASHI, Tegiri wrote:
> > > vldm10 wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > as far as I understand math a relation doesn't have meaninig
> > >
> > > Is it that you are serious ? The relation is a set. You do not
> > > comprehend what the set is ?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tegi
> >
> > don't think that the comprehension is the same as meaning.
> >
> > Vladimir Odrljin
>
> You like to play with words and pretend not undertsand the words ? This
> is a game you must play all alone, I am sorry.
>
> --
> Tegi
I think that meaning is pretty complex concept.
Let me simplify things and say that meaning has an intension and an
extension.
If we speak about a meaning of the relation then (if we can speak about
relation's meaning ?) we need extension. Maybe we can associate the
predicats,
maybe interpretation of the predicates, truth and false and the real
world
to see what is truth there. RM doesn't speak about the real world, the
attributes,
the entities etc.
So my point is: let define meaning of the relation first - then I can
see preciselly
what paol c want to say, maybe he is in right.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Mon Nov 06 2006 - 18:47:20 CET