Re: Codd's Information Principle
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:00:20 -0300
Message-ID: <4aec26d5$0$5353$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> ...
>
>
> I was quoting Mr. Scott. Regardless, I don't agree with either
> interpretation. I realize that many, perhaps most, people who have been
> trained in logic or read about it would place my attitude somewhere
> between unfaithful and ignorant, but I would never try to tell a user
> that some predicates are conjunctions and some aren't.
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:00:20 -0300
Message-ID: <4aec26d5$0$5353$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
> compdb_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Oct 28, 12:51 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> "Each row of the join represents a >>> conjunction of propositions, one for each operand" >> >> This doesn't make sense. Perhaps "one from each operand"? >> If so, yes. The predicate associated with r JOIN s is >> (predicate associated with r) AND (predicate associated with s). >> So each result tuple present makes this true and >> each result tuple absent makes this false. >> ...
>
> I was quoting Mr. Scott. Regardless, I don't agree with either
> interpretation. I realize that many, perhaps most, people who have been
> trained in logic or read about it would place my attitude somewhere
> between unfaithful and ignorant, but I would never try to tell a user
> that some predicates are conjunctions and some aren't.
Even if the user asked? Is it like taboo or something? Received on Sat Oct 31 2009 - 13:00:20 CET