Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:55:36 -0400
Message-ID: <47432d53$0$5268$>

Alfredo Novoa wrote:

> Hi,
> On 16 nov, 18:44, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>>In a tuple I would call "tuple elements" to the pairs formed by name
>>>and value.
>>I am not sure the name is necessarily part of the element other than to
>>identify it.

> But identification is essential.

In this context, your assertion is rather like 'transportation is essential'. Either buses or bicycles suffice. As I said, I am not sure the name is necessarily part of the element. We must have some way to identify the elements, but any identification method suffices. Of course, we choose names over positions because positions are necessarily tied to a specific medium, and we want to use media-independent representations.

>>I am not sure if that is clear enough. In mathematics, we
>>sometimes use names and we sometimes use position to identify the
>>elements of tuples.

> In "traditional" mathematics we use positions, in RM mathematics we
> use names to identify the elements of tuples. This is one of Codd's
> aportations. RM tuples and "traditional" tuples are not the same
> mathematical constructions.

In traditional mathematics, we also use names. My highschool algebra and functions and relations courses depended quite heavily on x, y, z, theta, r and phi -- not to mention the occasional u, v and w. Received on Tue Nov 20 2007 - 19:55:36 CET

Original text of this message