Re: atomic

paul c wrote:

Regarding RVA's, suppose I make up a relation that names all the children of various fathers.

I might have

F C
_ _

Joe Jack
Joe Jill

If RVA's are allowed, I could also "say":

F {C}
_ ___

Joe {Jack, Jill}

(here, I've taken the liberty for graphical reasons of calling the RVA "{C}".)

I could add another tuple:

F {C}
_ ___

Joe {Jack, Jill}
Bob {}

This might mean that Bob is the father of the empty set of children. As far as the predicate is concerned, this might be seen as contradictory because if Bob has no children, he can't be a father. (By "contradictory", I don't mean a contradiction within the database, rather that the second tuple and the predicate contradict each other.)

For that matter if F is not a primary key, I could say:

F {C}
_ ___

Joe {Jack, Jill}
Joe {}

which seems to have two such contradictions if such a thing is possible.

I don't understand the point of this second example. If you are describing a predicate where F should be a primary key, then pointing out that failing to declare the key causes problems seems redundant. If you are describing a predicate where F should not be a primary key, then presumably there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the relation above.


If RVA's aren't allowed (and neither are nulls), I think such contradictions aren't possible. But similar relations seem possible without the second contradiction, depending on the predicate, eg., F has lived with a woman who was mother to the children {C}. But I still have the contradiction that the unnamed woman in the second tuple couldn't be a mother (assuming we don't let lawyers into the discussion).

Maybe that second "contradiction" is just psychological and there is always another possible predicate that washes it away, such as "Person P has the children {C}". But that second tuple still seems superfluous.

For a predicate like "supplier S supplies the set of parts {P}", it doesn't seem very useful to use an RVA to say that a supplier supplies no parts when a relation that avoids RVA's can avoid recording this fact in the first place.

I suppose if a db language offers no way to construct such relations as above without using a form of "group" that takes as an operand only relations that don't contain RVA's, then such relations couldn't arise.

I'm wondering are there applications where RVA values that are "empty" make sense or are such values just a curious by-product of RVA's?

Yes, of course, there are lots of such applications (assuming RVAs make sense.)


If
the latter, should they be suppressed or somehow prevented?

Not the latter, which makes the question moot.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... operations needed for the processing of logical statements with truth values. ... tautological mechanics and I see a lot of confusion using established ... cause any contradiction that didn't already exist in x. ... predicate or a truth value, the and'ing of them doesn't produce a predicate ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Question about proof by contradiction
    ... not containing X results in a contradiction, X must contain itself, ... contain X because then X does not satisfy the predicate defining X. ... does follow from your axioms, because the system you construct is ... If it is labeled as such in the specification of your axiomatic system. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Question regard implication and being a theorem of FOL.
    ... Let P be a predicate of 0-arity and let Q be a different predicate of ... by applying completeness to 7a) ... by applying soundness to 7b) ... be proved from a contradiction. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Penroses reply to Chalmers
    ... Yes, it's meaningful, but it isn't an instance of a predicate C. ... Kimplies G which implies not K ... so Kleads to a contradiction. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: An idea against convention
    ... likely you constructed a strawman contradiction. ... I couldn't care less about Joe the "Blowhard"'s supposed ... It's pathetic not only because the cryptography ...
    (sci.crypt)