Re: Guessing?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:08:48 -0300
Message-ID: <4873ad31$0$4052$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> Since when does a predicate (ie., a conventional FOL predicate) mention
> a relation name?
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:08:48 -0300
Message-ID: <4873ad31$0$4052$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>
>> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message >> news:48738203$0$4049$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net... >> >>> paul c wrote: >>> >>>> Brian Selzer wrote: >>>> >>>>> "paul c" <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah> wrote in message >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>>> However, I'm content to say that all three relations have the same >>>>>> predicate, assuming no attribute renaming is involved in your >>>>>> interpretation. I know many people say that the 'or' is introduced >>>>>> to the predicate of R. I don't believe there is any law or >>>>>> principle, including relational closure, that requires anybody to >>>>>> think this way. >>>>>> >>>>> How can they have the same predicate if they can have different >>>>> extensions? That doesn't make any sense. >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> They are misconceived. The example strikes me as akin to Joe C's >>>> word games. >>> >>> To answer Selzer's query, they have different external predicates but >>> the same predicate as far as the DBMS can calculate. >> >> >> That doesn't make sense either. If there are different external >> predicates, then shouldn't that be reflected by there being different >> relation names, and thus differing internal predicates?
>
> Since when does a predicate (ie., a conventional FOL predicate) mention
> a relation name?
Usually when discussing the composition operator. f(g(x)) sort of thing.
> (Surely relation names aren't anything but an implementation device.)
I don't think I entirely agree. Received on Tue Jul 08 2008 - 20:08:48 CEST