Re: Database design, Keys and some other things

> This appears to be simply the idea of a surrogate key.
> If it is not, you have explaining ahead of you.

Well it appears i'm flailing. Marshall's frustrated jibe aside, i've appreciate the responses received, and anyone who has put the time therein deserves a pint next time they are in Nottingham.

I don't have the terminology yet to express the answer to the question above, outside of a cogent philosophical argument which would come across as smoke. Nor do I have any mathematical extension to provide positive evidence for the approach. Sod it, one last handwave...

The difference is analagous to the following - below is the graph component for some arbitrary mapping:

f = { <a,1>, <b,2>, <c,3> }

In the math, f is the symbol by which I will reference this graph, and would use to refer to the mapping inside further relations. I won't reference it by one of its tuples, and the f symbol certainly belongs outside of the set it represents, not encoded as a tuple within it. The distinction is between container and the content.

I need a drink, J. Received on Fri Sep 30 2005 - 02:48:47 CEST