# Re: RL notation

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:42:18 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <d9ca016b-b244-4514-9b50-e05cb8b42fad_at_e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>

On Feb 7, 2:29 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2:04 pm, Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:

*> > On Feb 7, 1:10 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> 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?

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