X-Received: by 10.68.190.232 with SMTP id gt8mr18157438pbc.3.1422903266764; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:54:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.18.213 with SMTP id 79mr231855qgf.38.1422903266714; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:54:26 -0800 (PST) Path: news.cambrium.nl!textnews.cambrium.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!209.85.213.216.MISMATCH!hl2no7892280igb.0!news-out.google.com!q4ni25qan.0!nntp.google.com!v8no5912155qal.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:54:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2aa17034-68f3-45a2-92b5-66f73cefb331@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=145.94.176.92; posting-account=i7Ak-QoAAABlJ1qBkr1tS-dBPg_3Ujft NNTP-Posting-Host: 145.94.176.92 References: <61044dae-51c9-43d4-87f9-1e12e0e3b15e@googlegroups.com> <0f9dea1d-36e1-4378-93a4-cb790a57c893@googlegroups.com> <4fcace2f-e767-4beb-8c54-0a7543b2fd30@googlegroups.com> <63393ec9-6afb-4ee8-b2c7-ae0186d4e227@googlegroups.com> <2aa17034-68f3-45a2-92b5-66f73cefb331@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1227712f-5dd1-4b1b-a576-238fcf6a92a4@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ? From: Jan Hidders Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:54:26 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.cambrium.nl Op maandag 2 februari 2015 16:53:05 UTC+1 schreef Derek Asirvadem: > > On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 02:10:09 UTC+11, Jan Hidders wrote: > >=20 > > A correction: upon rematching the video I saw that he actually does giv= e the definition in the beginning, even if somewhat briefly. He also refers= to the lecture notes and mentions that they contain the full definition. S= o I withdraw my criticism. >=20 > Ok. >=20 > We are progressing very slowly. >=20 > Now I realise, you probably did not understand my first post about this v= ideo. >=20 > I know that he inflates the value of his knowledge, whatever he is going = to teach, by mentioning databases that are in 1NF. I know that he gives th= e well-known theoretical "definition" for what is suggested as 3NF. But wh= at you do not know is, that definition is the usual, stupid, fractured, fra= gmented, definition that is only relevant to theoreticians. =20 >=20 > It is only a fraction of the original Codd definition. Interesting. So what is his definition of 3NF and how does it differ from C= odd's? Is it just different in wording, or is it actually not equivalent? -- Jan Hidders