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@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 - 05:51:23 CDT