Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: "Walter Mitty" <wamitty@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:21:49 GMT
"paul c" <toledobythesea@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:V4v3l.4$an4.3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
paul c wrote:
...
... Projection and <REMOVE> are always fundamental. ...
Oops, should have said <REMOVE> (projection) and <RENAME> are always
fundamental.
I am sorry to be so dense, but I need further explanation...
I asked whether <AND> <OR> &<NOT> are the three fundamental ones you
referred to.
I sounds, from your two answers as though the answer is "no". If I
understand you right, the three fundamentals are:
Either <NAND> or <NOR>, take you pick.
<REMOVE> (projection)
&
<RENAME>
Is this right?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- References:
- A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: Brian Selzer
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: vadimtro
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: Brian Selzer
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: Cimode
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: Walter Mitty
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- From: paul c
- A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Prev by Date: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Next by Date: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Previous by thread: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Next by thread: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
- Index(es):