Re: RL notation

From: Marshall <>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Feb 7, 2:29 pm, Marshall <> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:04 pm, Tegiri Nenashi <> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 1:10 pm, Marshall <> wrote:
> > I'd suggest operating
> > RL expressions in completely attribute free fascion. Whenever there is
> > an expression and there is a relation with some specific constraints
> > (e.g. having attribute x, or being empty), then it could be rewritten
> > in more general way without these constraints. In principle generality
> > should lead to simplicity....
> I agree this is desirable.
> I think that approach may place some limits on how expressive the
> resulting algebra can be. Exactly to what extent this is true
> will be a result of the axiomatization.

Well, maybe I have now talked myself out of my above idea. I can't think how it would be any less expressive.

Does having the universal equality relation E bring the same expressiveness as relational equality?

I do know that having relational equality and the lattice order operator have the same expressiveness, because you can define each in terms of the other.

Marshall Received on Fri Feb 08 2008 - 01:42:18 CET

Original text of this message