Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- From: TroyK <cs_troyk@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:08:23 -0700
On Jul 19, 11:54 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can rva's be keys? A relation value being the extension of a predicate, the
set of tuples in a relation value represents a set of positive atomic
formulae, and under the closed world assumption, that set implies the
negation of each atomic formula that conforms to the schema but is not
represented by a tuple. How, then, can a relation valued attribute be a
key? Consider, the schema R{S{A, B}}, and the following relation value, r:
r = {{S={{A=3, B=4}, {A=3, B=5}}}, {S={A=3, B=4}}}
Now, suppose that P(A, B) is the predicate of S. The first tuple of r
asserts that P(3, 5) is true, but the second tuple implies that P(3, 5) is
false. It stands to reason that P(3, 5) cannot be both true and false.
<snip>
But it can be the case that P(3, 5) is true within the context of the
first tuple,
and false within the context of the second. Substitute an integer-
valued attribute
for the rva in the above example and check that it is the case that
different
tuples in the relation can, indeed, have different values in the
integer-valued
attribute.
TroyK
.
- References:
- Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- From: paul c
- Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- From: Bob Badour
- Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- From: paul c
- Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- From: Bob Badour
- Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- From: paul c
- Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- From: Brian Selzer
- Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- Prev by Date: Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different?
- Next by Date: Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- Previous by thread: Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- Next by thread: Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|