Re: RM and definition of relations/tuples
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:58:18 +0200
Message-ID: <dm6g6t$vce$1_at_domitilla.aioe.org>
"Martin Zapf" <Martin_Zapf_at_gmx.net> wrote in message
news:dm420d$aj1$1_at_online.de...
>
> > Don't quite understand your question. Unnamed perspective is formally
> > dependent on the order of the attributes. Relational operators,
> > however, are order agnostic. Cartesian product, for example, wouldn't
> > be associative and commutative, if we take attribute order literally.
> >
>
> My explicit quesition is: What is the basic and universal
> definition/concept/idea behind these 2 definitions? This two definitions
> must have a common basis if they stand for the same thing. What is that
> common basis exactly without any ambiguity?
May I take your order, please ?
Today we have (1,2,3,...,n) and {1,2,3,...,n}.
Received on Fri Nov 25 2005 - 08:58:18 CET