Re: Character string relation and functional dependencies

From: V.J. Kumar <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:06:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <Xns9A03A406FA9B6vdghher_at_194.177.96.26>

Tegiri Nenashi <> wrote in  

> Anyway, this whole sub thread is a digression off the initial thought
> about connection between objects and relations on one hand, and object
> methods and functional dependencies on the other. I'm surprised nobody
> objected the idea (pun intended) that object corresponds to the
> relation, and not relation attribute.

That's probably because it is hard to object to or agree with an idea so vaguely formulated. Yes, objects in some sense could be and have been treated as relations, and vice versa, so what ? Some commercial SQL databases even have both implementations, 'objects as relations' and 'objects as attributes'. Until and unless you define some sort of object algebra and compare its features with the relational algebra or some other algebra of relations, there is nothing to argue about !  

> In a word, are computers finite machines? Yes. Does it necessarily
> restrict relations (and other structures) to be be finite ones? Not
> necessarily. I suggest to close this rather unsophisticated
> discussion.
Received on Tue Dec 11 2007 - 22:06:57 CET

Original text of this message