comp.databases.theory: by date

Sunday, 1 April 2007
- Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm littldo_at_gmail.com
- for fawne: extremely interesting nntp groups - ayho - (1/1) nat
- Re: Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm Lennart
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins David Cressey
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins David Cressey
- Re: OT: SICP Footnote Gene Wirchenko
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bruce C. Baker
- Re: choice of character for relational division Gene Wirchenko
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins Marshall
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins David Cressey
- data mining binayaj_at_gmail.com
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm littldo_at_yahoo.com
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division Cimode
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins JOG
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Infix operator names David Cressey
- Re: choice of character for relational division David Cressey
Monday, 2 April 2007
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: Infix operator names Bruce C. Baker
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bruce C. Baker
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division David Cressey
- Re: choice of character for relational division David Cressey
- Re: choice of character for relational division David Cressey
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division David Cressey
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division -CELKO-
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
- Database Design Patterns? aj
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bob Badour
- Re: Database Design Patterns? aj
- Re: Database Design Patterns? aj
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bob Badour
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bob Badour
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Doug Morse
- Re: choice of character for relational division Marshall
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bruce C. Baker
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: Database Design Patterns? paul c
- Re: choice of character for relational division paul c
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bob Badour
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Marshall
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Drago Ganic
- Re: Database Design Patterns? JOG
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bob Badour
- Re: choice of character for relational division Bob Badour
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bob Badour
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bob Badour
Wednesday, 4 April 2007
- Re: Database Design Patterns? jefftyzzer
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Aloha Kakuikanu
- Database design of stock prices? knguyen
- SQL Joins question jeff.lawrence_at_gmail.com
Thursday, 5 April 2007
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Jonathan Leffler
- Re: SQL Joins question David Portas
- Re: SQL Joins question Cimode
- Re: Database Design Patterns? jefftyzzer
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Database Design Patterns? mAsterdam
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Database design of stock prices? DBMS_Plumber
Friday, 6 April 2007
- Re: Database Design Patterns? Bruce C. Baker
Saturday, 7 April 2007
- Re: data mining jefftyzzer
- Re: Database design of stock prices? jefftyzzer
- Re: Database design of stock prices? Bob Badour
- MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
Sunday, 8 April 2007
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation paul c
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
Monday, 9 April 2007
- Where is everybody? Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: Where is everybody? Bob Badour
- Re: Database design of stock prices? jefftyzzer
- Re: Database design of stock prices? Bob Badour
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
- Re: Where is everybody? David Cressey
- Table acting as a relation table Guy
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Lennart
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Guy
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Bob Badour
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Guy
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Bob Badour
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Bob Badour
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Marshall
- Re: Where is everybody? Keith H Duggar
- Re: Where is everybody? Bob Badour
- Re: Table acting as a relation table David Cressey
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Lennart
- Entity Relationship Diagrams Gregc.
- Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams Roy Hann
- Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams David Cressey
- Re: Table acting as a relation table David Cressey
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Brian Selzer
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Bob Badour
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Guy
- Re: Table acting as a relation table David Cressey
- Re: Table acting as a relation table David Cressey
- Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams Bob Badour
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Bob Badour
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Lennart
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Guy
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Lennart
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Lennart
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Lennart
- Re: Table acting as a relation table Guy
Thursday, 12 April 2007
- Re: Where is everybody? Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: Where is everybody? Matthias Klaey
- Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams Bernard Peek
- Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? beachmountain_at_hotmail.com
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? Bob Badour
- Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? sqlservernewbie_at_yahoo.com
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? Cimode
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? Bob Badour
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? Volker Hetzer
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? Mark D Powell
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? fitzjarrell_at_cox.net
Friday, 13 April 2007
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? sqlservernewbie_at_yahoo.com
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? beachmountain_at_hotmail.com
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? beachmountain_at_hotmail.com
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? Brian Selzer
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? David Cressey
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? Cimode
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? David Cressey
Saturday, 14 April 2007
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? paul c
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? William Robertson
- cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) mAsterdam
- Re: Database Design Patterns? jlowery
Sunday, 15 April 2007
- delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade Brian Selzer
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
- Re: Where is everybody? Marshall
- Re: Where is everybody? Marshall
Monday, 16 April 2007
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation paul c
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? beachmountain_at_hotmail.com
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Jon Heggland
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Many To Many Relationships Loon
- Re: Many To Many Relationships Cimode
- Re: Many To Many Relationships Tonkuma
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Re: Where is everybody? Bob Badour
- Re: Many To Many Relationships David Cressey
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation paul c
- Re: delete cascade Marshall
- Re: Many To Many Relationships Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Bob Badour
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: Where is everybody? Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Bob Badour
- Re: Where is everybody? Bob Badour
- Re: A database theory resource - ideas Bob Badour
- Re: A database theory resource - ideas Bob Badour
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Re: Where is everybody? Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Designing a database system for multiple autonomous clients. anthony.galano_at_gmail.com
- Re: Where is everybody? Marshall
- Re: Many To Many Relationships David Cressey
- Re: Designing a database system for multiple autonomous clients. Marshall
- Re: Many To Many Relationships Marshall
- Re: Where is everybody? Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Marshall
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Bob Badour
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation paul c
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: Where is everybody? Bob Badour
- Re: Designing a database system for multiple autonomous clients. Thomas Gagne
- Re: delete cascade David BL
- Re: Many To Many Relationships David Cressey
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Mike Preece
- Re: Many To Many Relationships Bob Badour
- Re: Many To Many Relationships Brian Selzer
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation paul c
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: Many To Many Relationships Tonkuma
- Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation Brian Selzer
- Re: delete cascade paul c
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade David BL
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- [MultiValue] Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) dawn
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Brian Selzer
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Brian Selzer
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Gene Wirchenko
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Mike Preece
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Brian Selzer
- Re: delete cascade David BL
- Re: delete cascade David BL
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade David BL
- Signing relational databases Julien Lafaye
- Re: delete cascade David Cressey
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade jonnie
- WWW/Internet 2007: Call for Papers (Vila Real, Portugal) natty2006_at_gmail.com
- Re: delete cascade Brian Selzer
- Re: delete cascade Brian Selzer
- Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects Cimode
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) dawn
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
Thursday, 19 April 2007
- Re: Many To Many Relationships mAsterdam
- Re: Many To Many Relationships mAsterdam
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV] mAsterdam
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] mAsterdam
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] mAsterdam
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Bob Badour
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) paul c
- Re: Signing relational databases Marshall
- Re: Database design of stock prices? knguyen
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects Jonathan Leffler
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Signing relational databases Julien Lafaye
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Brian Selzer
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Brian Selzer
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV] Mike Preece
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost) Brian Selzer
- Re: Signing relational databases Marshall
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV] dawn
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] mAsterdam
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects mAsterdam
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects mAsterdam
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects Bruce C. Baker
Friday, 20 April 2007
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] paul c
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV] paul c
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects Bob Badour
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects paul c
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Brian Selzer
- Re: Signing relational databases Jonathan Leffler
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects Jonathan Leffler
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects Bob Badour
- Re: Signing relational databases mountain man
- Re: Signing relational databases David BL
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] paul c
- Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Bob Badour
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Brian Selzer
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Brian Selzer
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? jefftyzzer
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? Aloha Kakuikanu
- Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API? Bob Badour
Saturday, 21 April 2007
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] paul c
- predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation davis.jeffrey_at_gmail.com
- Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation Bob Badour
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Bob Badour
- Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation Marshall
- Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation Bob Badour
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] paul c
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Bob Badour
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] David BL
- Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation David BL
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Brian Selzer
- Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation Marshall
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] David Cressey
- Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction] Brian Selzer
- Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation davis.jeffrey_at_gmail.com
Sunday, 22 April 2007
- Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade Brian Selzer
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
Monday, 23 April 2007
- Re: delete cascade mAsterdam
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade Brian Selzer
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: delete cascade paul c
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
- Naming Conventions? Karen Hill
- Re: delete cascade Bob Badour
- Re: Naming Conventions? Bob Badour
- Re: Naming Conventions? Karen Hill
- Re: delete cascade paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions? Bob Badour
- Re: Naming Conventions? paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions? paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions? Bob Badour
- Re: Naming Conventions? paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions? Bob Badour
- Re: Naming Conventions? paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions? Marshall
- Simonyi was in space - back already (Was: Naming Conventions?) Jonathan Leffler
- Re: Simonyi was in space - back already (Was: Naming Conventions?) Bob Badour
- Re: delete cascade David BL
- Re: Simonyi was in space - back already (Was: Naming Conventions?) Marshall
- Re: delete cascade David BL
- Re: Naming Conventions? Andy Dingley
- Re: Naming Conventions? Alfredo Novoa
- Re: Naming Conventions? Gints Plivna
- Re: Naming Conventions? jefftyzzer
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
- Re: Naming Conventions? jefftyzzer
- Re: Naming Conventions? mAsterdam
- Re: Naming Conventions? mAsterdam
- Re: Naming Conventions? David BL
- Re: delete cascade Brian Selzer
- Re: Naming Conventions? paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions? mAsterdam
- Re: Naming Conventions? jefftyzzer
- temporal data constraint davis.jeffrey_at_gmail.com
- Why relational division is so uncommon? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Naming Conventions? Gints Plivna
- temporal data constraints davis.jeffrey_at_gmail.com
- Re: Naming Conventions? paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions? paul c
Thursday, 26 April 2007
- Re: temporal data constraint Brian Selzer
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
- Re: Naming Conventions? Marshall
- Newbie question on table design. somedeveloper_at_gmail.com
- Re: temporal data constraint Jon Heggland
- Re: Naming Conventions? Bob Badour
- Re: Newbie question on table design. Bob Badour
- Re: Newbie question on table design. Brian Selzer
- Re: Naming Conventions? David BL
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? paul c
- Re: Newbie question on table design. Cimode
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: temporal data constraints Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? jefftyzzer
Friday, 27 April 2007
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? paul c
- Re: Newbie question on table design. paul c
- Re: Newbie question on table design. paul c
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? paul c
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? paul c
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
- Re: Newbie question on table design. Brian Selzer
- Re: Newbie question on table design. paul c
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? paul c
- newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Jason S
- Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Bob Badour
- Unrepeatable Read: why a problem Ravi
- Re: Unrepeatable Read: why a problem V.J. Kumar
- Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Jason S
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Thomas Gagne
- Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Bob Badour
- Re: Unrepeatable Read: why a problem Bob Badour
- Re: Unrepeatable Read: why a problem Ravi
- Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Ed Prochak
- Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions? Bob Badour
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon? V.J. Kumar
Saturday, 28 April 2007
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? Lemming
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? hpuxrac
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? Lemming
- Re: Newbie question on table design. -CELKO-
- Re: Newbie question on table design. David Cressey
- Re: Newbie question on table design. Bob Badour
- Re: Newbie question on table design. Brian Selzer
- Re: Theoretical definition for the number of unique values? hpuxrac
Sunday, 29 April 2007
- A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Oracle 9i Database Administration in 10 Minutes takveen_at_gmail.com
- Re: Newbie question on table design. -CELKO-
- Re: Newbie question on table design. David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Brian Selzer
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation paul c
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Tonkuma
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Brian Selzer
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Brian Selzer
Monday, 30 April 2007
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Bob Badour
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation paul c
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Brian Selzer
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Brian Selzer
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Brian Selzer
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation David Cressey
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Bob Badour
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Brian Selzer
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode
- Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation Cimode

Last message date: Mon Apr 30 2007 - 18:49:34 CEST
Archived on: Sun Jun 26 2016 - 21:51:56 CEST

474 messages sort by: [ thread ] [ author ] [ date ] [ subject ]
Nearby: [ About this archive ] [ Other mail archives ]