Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational algebra - why did SQL become the industry standard?
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:09:36 -0800
Message-ID: <3v77a.8$Us3.88_at_news.oracle.com>
"Paul" <pbrazier_at_cosmos-uk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:51d64140.0302260614.2449aa2a_at_posting.google.com...
> "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:<b3de03$nfa$2_at_sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com>...
> > > As long as the polar representation has a
> > > representable value in that area, I see no problems. Even if the polar
> > > representation has no value in that area, but a point near that area
I'm
> > > still okay with it.
> >
> > But what happens if many polar points are 'near' that area?. If you can
define
> > a way of having exactly one polar point 'near' every Cartesian point
(and vis
> > versa), then ok.
>
> When we have domains of "rationals" or "reals" in a database, really
> we're just talking about domains of integers with the scale shifted.
> So for theoretical purposes we can ignore any basic number domain
> except integers.
There is no reason why databases can't follow the suit and introduce better real numbers domain. Received on Wed Feb 26 2003 - 19:09:36 CET
