Path: text.usenetserver.com!out01b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pd7cy1no!pd7cy2no!shaw.ca!pd7urf3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.84.208.66 From: paul c User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: One-To-One Relationships References: <0aIVi.160673$1y4.23786@pd7urf2no> In-Reply-To: X-No-Archive: yes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:46:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.59.144.75 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7urf3no 1193791572 64.59.144.75 (Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:46:12 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:46:12 MDT Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Xref: usenetserver.com comp.databases.theory:167080 X-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:46:12 EST (text.usenetserver.com) David Cressey wrote: ... > > It gets even foggier because many of us (myself included) use the term > "relation" in reference to something that, in the strictest mathematical > definition, is really a "relationship". > > > If I understand your meaning, I'm quite happy to say "relation" without other qualifications such as what I understand to be the mathematical ordering assumption and then by giving names to the relation's "components", as long as the context is db's. I think this is quite in the long-standing spirit of symbolic manipulation, which is the general technique for implementing db's.