Re: RM formalism supporting partial information
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:35:17 GMT
Message-ID: <V4p0j.11368$PE.1302_at_pd7urf1no>
>
> For myself, I have found less and less use for the concept
> of tuple over time. I try as much as possible to do everything
> with just relations. Relations as sets-of-propositions, relations
> as predicates, cardinality-1 relations instead of tuples, etc.
> In fact I am going so far as to attempt the idea of a theory with
> relations as the only primitive. (And possibly also including
> scalars.)
>
> Not 100% clear if the idea can be carried out all the way, but
> it's promising so far.
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:35:17 GMT
Message-ID: <V4p0j.11368$PE.1302_at_pd7urf1no>
Marshall wrote:
...
>> The important concepts are tuples, propositions, predicates etc.
>
> For myself, I have found less and less use for the concept
> of tuple over time. I try as much as possible to do everything
> with just relations. Relations as sets-of-propositions, relations
> as predicates, cardinality-1 relations instead of tuples, etc.
> In fact I am going so far as to attempt the idea of a theory with
> relations as the only primitive. (And possibly also including
> scalars.)
>
> Not 100% clear if the idea can be carried out all the way, but
> it's promising so far.
(Forgot to ask this before). I notice that D&D depend on tuples to define their GROUP operator. Is there a way to define a Grouping or group-by operator with tuples? Received on Tue Nov 20 2007 - 00:35:17 CET