Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies

On 25 fév, 18:02, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:

> Heh, I usually find it impossible to try to argue against people's likes
> or dislikes. I would just say that problems of understanding increase
> when the vocabulary is increased based on them. Rather than trying to
> qualify a formal definition by adding a notion of "association" in some
> vague boilerplate, my liking would be to drop some other term in
> exchange.
Forcing the use of familiar terms into something that breaks the coherence of a specific paradigm is even worse. *Association* may or may not be a good term (I like its neutrality) but sometimes the intent of using new terms may help refine something unclear. The contributions I have observed in this thread are the most interesting I have seen so far in this NG, and I have to admit I am grateful to Marshall for that.

Proofs and formal mathematical definitions were provided as a critiscism attempt. Truth is the first vicitim of ignoring the obvious.

> (If the motive is to sugar-coat the formal definitions for an
> layman's illumination, I'd vote for teaching him the formal definition
> instead. If he's disinterested, I'd say forget the whole idea, let him
> decide on his own if he wants to use the application or not.)
Fair enough. That is a healthy conservative approach :) we need this too...

I begin to be impressed by paul's wisdom Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 20:39:33 CET