Re: Role of functional dependencies in database design
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 01:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <64b9cd98-8a5e-4f95-a805-a8ab8c80ed70_at_googlegroups.com>
Op vrijdag 20 februari 2015 10:08:58 UTC+1 schreef Nicola:
> In article <>,
> pk wrote:
>
> > > given two lecturers L1 and L2 and a time T
> > > when L1 is teaching at time T and L2 is teaching at time T
> > > then L1 and L2 are in different rooms
> >
> > FORALL L1,L2,T,R1,R2
> > teaches(L1,T,R1) AND teaches(L2,T,R2) => R1 <> R2
>
> I think that it should be:
>
> FORALL L1,L2,T,R1,R2
> L1 <> L2 AND teaches(L1,T,R1) AND teaches(L2,T,R2) => R1 <> R2
>
> > > (this is absolutely off the top of my head: don't take it as a serious
> > > attempt).
> >
> > No FD.
>
> Correct. The FD is implied, though:
>
> Let X be L1 <> L2
> Let Y be teaches(L1,T,R1) AND teaches(L2,T,R2)
> Let Z be R1 <> R2
>
> Then the sentence above is the universal closure of
>
> X AND Y -> Z,
>
> If my coffee has worked as it should, the latter is equivalent to
>
> (NOT Z) AND Y -> NOT X,
>
> that is,
>
> R1 = R2 AND teaches(L1,T,R1) AND teaches(L2,T,R2) -> L1 = L2,
>
> or, simplifying,
>
> teaches(L1,T,R) AND teaches(L2,T,R) -> L1 = L2.
>
> The idea behind my example is that a hypothetical formalism based on
> natural language might allow the user to write specifications that are
> not a direct translation of the logical definition of a FD, but from
> which the system might *infer* a FD, giving the user more freedom in the
> way constraints may be expressed. But again, I haven't really thought
> about it too much.
>
> Nicola
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---