Re: ADR's Normalization question
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:24:45 GMT
Message-ID: <hApMm.52382$Db2.15768_at_edtnps83>
>
> Okay, this is new to me, and given your further exposition, would
> appear highly nonstandard to me. Can you point me towards a freely
> available paper in which Date nails himself to the cross with this
> interpretation?
> --
> Sampo
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:24:45 GMT
Message-ID: <hApMm.52382$Db2.15768_at_edtnps83>
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>> The claim is due to Date's "otherwise quite independent" criterion. [...]
>
> Okay, this is new to me, and given your further exposition, would
> appear highly nonstandard to me. Can you point me towards a freely
> available paper in which Date nails himself to the cross with this
> interpretation?
> --
> Sampo
Since I started it let me jump in and say that while the second objection about 'quite independent' was a bit pedantic, given the context it wasn't wrong. The first objection was more to the point, ie., I had dropped the two fd's that Date used as a basis. The second was just a side-effect of the basic error. Received on Tue Nov 17 2009 - 05:24:45 CET