Re: On the usefulness of tables definitions in RM...

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c1eeb4ec-220c-4d09-a59f-4b2b12983046_at_x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>



On 21 août, 01:29, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> >> I then remind the class that the tabular appearance is merely a happy
> >> accident.
> > Thanks for this insight. I am curious as to what do you think is
> > gained by your students, in the perspective of understanding
> > relations, in going through such efforts.
>
> Nothing, I hope.  Or rather, I hope they are disuaded that the tabular
> representation has any special significance. At the very least I hope
> they don't leave saying things like "tables are two-dimensional".
>
> But perhaps you are asking if they discern a distinction between table
> valued variables and tables?  No, probably not.  I do actually say words
> that spell out the difference but I can't say I ever test their
> understanding of the difference.

You have guessed right. Don't you believe that understanding that difference is important to understand relation manipulation/ operation ?
> Roy
Received on Sat Aug 21 2010 - 15:25:33 CDT

Original text of this message