Re: Negative Numbers in "Identity" or" Autonumber" fields
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:42:27 GMT
Message-ID: <nBwMh.4765$zN.750_at_trndny03>
"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174488227.987772.200770_at_p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 6:26 am, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > However, the word "only" in your post means something like "less than"
> > conveys no information.
> > This is not the case for the numbers one takes for service at the deli
> > counter. If they say "now serving 72" and my number is 73, that tells
me
> > something. Or am I misreading you.
>
> [There were four posts asking me what I meant; I'll reply to this
> one.]
>
> The idea is a type for which the only operator defined is '='. If
> we have two values of this type, we can tell whether they are
> the same, and that's all we can tell. Further we have a way to
> acquire a value of this type that has not been used in the current
> system state before.
>
> I have run in to this construct a few times in the past, in papers
> on various topics, and it appears to be exactly what was
> being described in the quoted Codd paper.
>
> It leaves me somewhat puzzled, because
> it appears to have use but it doesn't appear to do anything.
> In the RM world it can function as a surrogate. I also
> run into this is security papers. "An unforgeable token"
> is what it is usually called in security land. I vaguely
> recall it had other uses but I don't offhand remember
> what they are.
>