# Re: Basic question?What 's the key if there 's no FD(Functional Dependencies)?

From: vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 7 Nov 2006 09:38:31 -0800

Cimode wrote:
> vldm10 wrote:
> > 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.
> It looks as if the eternal dilemna of definition/meaning of relations
> is getting back on track again. In fact, a pretty sterile debate. Two
> schools of thought seem to dominate. People who define relations as
> ensemblist combinatory functions according to their transformational
> properties and the one who define relations according as set of values
> that populate them and therefore describe them. The latter is a result
> of computing theory trying to force math abstraction in leading to
> formulate the axiom that all functions are necessary relations. The
> first approach OTOH is a total negation of such axiom.

```>
```

> My two cents...