Re: Perhaps an idiotic question

paul c a écrit :

> But it perplexes me even though I admit I have no good reason for asking:
>
> If I declare a relation (or more properly a relvar) R to have an
> attribute A where A's type is the type of R am I declaring a fallacy or
> something that is logically possible (ignoring whether it has any use)?
>
> p
The question certainly is not idiotic but few words seem missing.

If A is to be considered un-ary relation creating type T1 by restriction and R is un-ary relation creating type T2 then it would not be a fallacy to assume T1=T2. In all other cases, I do not see how it could be validated as true. Received on Thu Nov 30 2006 - 20:21:29 CET