Re: choice of character for relational division
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:51:23 GMT
Message-ID: <Le5Qh.18375$PV3.190658_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:51:23 GMT
Message-ID: <Le5Qh.18375$PV3.190658_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
David Cressey wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175468445.659304.173050_at_b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Apr 1, 3:00 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>David Cressey wrote:
>>>
> Marshall,
I'm not Marshall, but I am answering anyway.
> Why did they call it "relational division", anyway? Is there some feature
> of relational division that makes it reminiscent of arithmetic division? I
> can see how "cartesian product" is connected to "product". all you have to
> do is look at the cardinalities.
Relational divide is to cartesian product as divide is to product. Received on Mon Apr 02 2007 - 12:51:23 CEST