Re: choice of character for relational division

From: David Cressey <cressey73_at_verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 05:13:30 GMT
Message-ID: <_h0Qh.1348$gb6.16@trndny07>

"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:
> >
> > > > ... all the good operators have been taken!
> >
> > > I'm just picking up on this now. Did the author mean "all the good
symbols
> > > have been taken" instead of "all the good operators have been taken"?
> >
> > Operators are symbols by definition. He didn't say that all the good
> > operations have been taken.
>
> All the good nonalphabetic symbols used to represent functions
> typically via infix notation but sometimes for prefix or suffix
> have been previously owned?
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. But are protected by our extended warranty?
>

Marshall,

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. Received on Mon Apr 02 2007 - 00:13:30 CDT