Re: Database design
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:49:10 +0100
Message-ID: <43fe035c$0$11072$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, it suggests that I did not agree that a set possessing order did
> not possess an order, and further wondered what it might take to
> satisfy those seeking to maintain such definition in the face of a
> proper ordering. N-elements to n-sets?
>
> But you're backing to the same objection, the same diversions, and the
> accusations?
>
> You're still trolling? It makes _you_ look a troll, that is.
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:49:10 +0100
Message-ID: <43fe035c$0$11072$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>
>>>Apparently, if a set cannot include proper ordering, then a proper >>>ordering of n-elements must be reduced to n-sets? Nine players in the >>>starting line-up require nine separate relations? or practically, nine >>>separate tables?
>
>
>>See, this is the sort of thing that makes you look like a troll.
>
>
> No, it suggests that I did not agree that a set possessing order did
> not possess an order, and further wondered what it might take to
> satisfy those seeking to maintain such definition in the face of a
> proper ordering. N-elements to n-sets?
>
> But you're backing to the same objection, the same diversions, and the
> accusations?
>
> You're still trolling? It makes _you_ look a troll, that is.
You have been called a troll, not by Marshall Spight. On the contrary. He has done some quite nice explaining and shown a lot of patience. Now you say he is trolling ?! Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 19:49:10 CET