Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)

From: Daniel Poon <spam_at_spam.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:06:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1002297924.582186_at_kang.qonos>

> Actually, the definition of "relation" given earlier, should have
referred
> to "a set of ordered n-tuples"
> instead of a "set of ordered pairs".

Yeah, I guess so. It was taken off a maths web page. I think the current usage of relation in maths tends to the binary usage, so thats what you see in their definition.

Dan Received on Fri Oct 05 2001 - 18:06:33 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Aloha Kakuikanu: "Third Manifesto Database"
Previous message: Amy: "Re: Data Access Middleware & a Business User's view of data"
Maybe in reply to: Daniel Poon: "Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)"
In reply to David Cressey: "Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)"
Next in thread: Bob Badour: "Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message