Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:56:21 +0100
> David Cressey wrote:
>> vldm10 wrote:
>>>> David BL wrote:
>>>>> This however doesn't change the fact that most authors
>>>>> define a (mathematical) relation as a set
>>>>> of ordered tuples, which means a function is not a relation
>>>>> (assuming, as most do, that a function has
>>>>> a defined domain and codomain).
>>>> I don't understand how the conclusion follow from the premise.
>>> I am afraid that you don't understand above conclusion
>>> because you don't understand what function is.
>> What makes you think that?
> Definition1 A function from A to B is a rule that assigns,
> to each member of set A, exactly one member of set B.
> Is this good or bad definition for a function?
> If you thing that this is good definition for a function then
> please explain why this is good definition,
> else please explain why it is not good definition.
> Your answer on my question will be also answer on your question.
This is getting silly. Did you even read the question?
How did you assess David's lack of understanding 'function'? What gave you that impression?
This is not the first time that 'function' popped up as pivotal to some misunderstandings in cdt - but I fail to see where the unclarity is right now.
> For now we have to live with different meanings
> of _function_ when talking about databases:
> "The function of this function is to get the tuples from B
> that are functionally dependant on A."
> Three different contexts, but just about the same meaning:
> A purpose or use.
> A binary mathematical relation with at most
> one b for each a in (a,b).
> A subroutine, procedure, or method.
> every operator is a function
> every function is a relation
> Please be specific.
-- What you see depends on where you stand.Received on Mon Jan 14 2008 - 22:56:21 CET