Re: One-To-One Relationships
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:46:12 GMT
Message-ID: <ofQVi.162250$th2.225_at_pd7urf3no>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:46:12 GMT
Message-ID: <ofQVi.162250$th2.225_at_pd7urf3no>
David Cressey wrote:
...
>
> It gets even foggier because many of us (myself included) use the term
> "relation" in reference to something that, in the strictest mathematical
> definition, is really a "relationship".
>
>
>
If I understand your meaning, I'm quite happy to say "relation" without other qualifications such as what I understand to be the mathematical ordering assumption and then by giving names to the relation's "components", as long as the context is db's. I think this is quite in the long-standing spirit of symbolic manipulation, which is the general technique for implementing db's. Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 01:46:12 CET