 | |
teaching relational basics to people, questions
comp.databases.theory comp.databases.theory
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: teaching relational basics to people, questions -
12-18-2009
, 03:23 AM
|
Right now it is to be expected that I will be spreading the good relational word among my peers, in the near future. That is an opportunity one doesn't want to fuck up; many enough have gone down that road already. So I've been going over, and over, and over the basics. Don't want them to be able to catch me off guard with the minutiae, after all... So now I bump into my first real surprise, and the chills immediately go down my spine. That's Date et al.'s answer regarding the implications between 6NF and DK/NF, athttp://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/621935.htm . In there they flat out state that DK/NF doesn't imply 6NF. So, my first question is, can this really be true? I mean, this seems highly suspect to me: since 6NF is a normal form like any other and is as such defined by the constraints it upholds by design, and on the other hand DK/NF is by definition a normal form where any constraint whatsoever follows from the domain and key ones, shouldn't it be self- evident that DK/NF logically implies 6NF, and in fact any other form? |
puzzled by it because this is basically a mathematical theorem and as
such the answer to it lies in understanding the math. But in your
additional text you seem to question more the philosophical /
intuitive foundations of these notions. Is that correct? And what is
exactly your problem with that? FWIW I'd certainly agree that the
justification of 6NF is suspect and weak, maybe even based on
misunderstanding the relational model, and it is certainly not widely
accepted.
Please be brief. ;-)
-- Jan Hidders
#52
| |||
| |||
|
|
"paul c" <toledobythe... (AT) oohay (DOT) ac> wrote in message news:O_aVm.55874$Db2.49482 (AT) edtnps83 (DOT) .. Mr. Scott wrote: "paul c" <toledobythe... (AT) oohay (DOT) ac> wrote in message news  ASUm.55772$Db2.7870 (AT) edtnps83 (DOT) ..Mr. Scott wrote: ... In a typical table, CTRS {COURSE, TEACHER, ROOM, STUDENT}, each row states that a particular COURSE is taught by a particular TEACHER in a particular ROOM to a particular STUDENT. Now, while it can be argued that there can't be a course without a teacher, or that there can't be a course without a student, or that there can't be a student without a teacher, the room exists independent of whether there is a course, or a teacher or a student. *It therefore follows that locating the fact that 'there is a room <ROOM>' only in table CTRS is a problem because then there could only be a room whenever there is at least one course and at least one teacher and at least one student. *When one inserts a row into an empty CTRS, one effectively asserts * * ... * * that 'there is a room <ROOM>,' ... This presumes that the predicate for a table R { ROOM } is the same as the predicate of CTRS { ROOM } but from the dbms perspective it's patent they can't be, since R and CTRS don't even have the same heading. *If CTRS is not base, maybe you can say such but if it is base, one can only assert that there exists some teacher, student and course such that room ROOM> is involved. There is no table R. *The only place in the database to record assertions that there is a particular room is in CTRS, but one cannot assert that there is a particular room without also asserting that there is a particular teacher, that there is a particular student, and that said teacher is teaching a particular course to said student in that room. If you disagree that all of these assertions are a consequence of inserting a single row, then how is it that there can be an answer to the query, "is course <COURSE> held in room <ROOM>?" *Unless thereis the possibility that 'course <COURSE> is held in room <ROOM>,' there can be no answer (at least not a yes or a no) to the query. ... If CTRS is base, that question is strictly not answerable. Yes, it is answerable. *The fact that a particular teacher is teaching a particular student a particular course in a particular room implies the fact that that particular course is held in that particular room. I suspect that the man in the street might think such a query is possible (not to mention many db designers) but to be precise I think it's important to distinguish what is from what could be, otherwise we lapse into mysticism. *A query that is answerable from CTRS is "are there some teachers and students such that course <COURSE> and room ROOM> are involved?". I think you're assuming that it is possible for there to be courses in rooms even if there aren't any students or teachers, but that hasn't been established, and in fact since there is no place in the database for such assertions, there cannot be courses in rooms without students or teachers. The queries that are answerable are therefore not limited to just those that involve all four attributes. If there were a place in the database for such assertions, such as a table CR {COURSE,ROOM} Then what is in the database would consist of the logical sum of all courses in rooms without students or teachers and all courses in rooms with students and teachers. *The query "Is course <COURSE> held in room ROOM>?" would involve both CR and CTRS, unless there is an inclusion dependency from CTRS[COURSE,ROOM] to CR[COURSE,ROOM], in which case the query could be answered without involving CTRS. Just because SQL and the like might not be expressive enough to prevent the query doesn't mean the most basic condition, ie., the definition of CTRS, can be ignored. *A language that might reflect this might have two sets of operands for projection instead of one. (I also realize that the usual explanations of projection operators don't make this clear. *Not that table/relvar names carry any significance other than as a device to segregate rows/tuples according to predicate but it might be more suggestive of the actual situation if the name of CTRS were changed to 'EXPELLED'.) Table names are significant. *There can be more than one table with the same set of columns. *The closest logical analog to a table name is a predicate symbol. *Predicate symbols are significant. P(X) may be true for a given X even if Q(X) is false for the same X. Perhaps the most remarkably bald of these assertions is that a 'particular ROOM' has 'independent' 'existence' when a 'particular' STUDENT or TEACHER or COURSE doesn't. *I've never even liked the word 'exists'... 'forall' is okay but 'is present' would help keep one's eye on the ball. *To avoid the chronic mystical persuasion, basically all we really need to be concerned with is the presence of symbols. The idea that symbols can be 'present' is very strange. *For each tablein a database there is a collection of assertions that can be represented by a row in the table. *Some of those assertions may be true, and some may be false, but the symbols from which those assertions are composed are always 'present' regardless of whether the assertions are true or not. *They are part of the language. *The non-logical symbols of a typical first-order language consists of a set of predicate symbols of various arities, a setof function symbols of various arities, and a set of variable names. *Arbitrary propositions are 0-ary predicate symbols. *Constants are 0-ary function symbols. *The idea that those sets of symbols can somehow change undermines the basis of the logic. *Moreover, the unique name assumption demands that everything that has a name has one and only one name for all time, but if the pool of names can change, then there's no longer any guarantee that the name of something won't be different at some future time. I think you're continual reference to mysticism is misplaced. *Ignorance may be bliss, but it has no place in database theory. *It is a mistake to deliberately ignore the fact that since databases can change, the propositions represented by the rows that can be in the database must concern concrete rather than abstract objects, since abstract objects are independent of time. *Propositions that concern abstract objects are either necessarily true or necessarily false, so they have no place in a time-varying relation. *Think: P -> (~#~P /\ ~#P): P implies possibly P but not necessarily P. Every proposition that can be represented by a row in the database has to have a similar form. *If the contents of a table can change, then the propositions that can be represented by a row in the table must be possible but not necessary, and the only way they can be possible but not necessary is if they concern concrete rather than abstract objects. Probably the most important property of concrete objects is that they have lifetimes. *They can come into existence and they can cease to exist. *This is not mysticism: it is a logical consequence of the fact that the contents of a table can change. *But I understand your dislike of 'exists' as a quantifier. *I prefer to use 'there is' instead of 'there exists,' not because there is something mystical about actual existence, but because a fixed domain is easier to work with, especially for temporal data. *A fixed domain includes everything that ever was, everything that actually is, and everything that can ever be. *When the domain is fixed, the collection of assertions that can be represented in the database is also fixed, so the determination of which are represented at a given time is as simple as assigning a truth value to each. *There is no need to extend every time there is an update. *For example, suppose that someone tries to insert a row for part '123455,' but there actually is no part '123455.' *The row is inconsistent with the database because there is no part '123455' in the domain of parts, so there wouldn't be any propositions in the extension that concern part '123455,' but what if someone at some later time defines a part '123455?' *At that time the row would be consistent because the part '123455' would be in the domain of parts. *How would the information that '123455' is in the domain of parts be maintained so that consistency can be ensured? *Domains are not tables. *One can't insert values into a domain without altering the database scheme. *However, with a fixed domain, itis always the case that '123455' can be a part, and the fact that '123455' actually is a part would have to be recorded in a table somewhere in the database. *It is also a simple matter with a fixed domain to represent something in the database that no longer actually exists or something that may occur in the future.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
I would appreciate it if you could give a definition of abstract and
concrete objects. Any definition, or rough description of abstract
objects can clarify these important things in your message which was
interesting.
As far as I know the following questions don’t have good answers:
What abstract objects are; how we know that they exist?
What is the distinction between concrete and abstract objects – what
is the criterion of distinction?
The notation of objects is also questionable. As far as I know this
notation was first introduced by G. Frege.
If you use the terms abstract and concrete objects in the context of a
certain theory it might be interesting to know which framework you
used. I get the impression that these themes are becoming very
important in modern mathematics and some other sciences.
Vladimir Odrljin
#53
| |||
| |||
|
|
I would appreciate it if you could give a definition of abstract and concrete objects. Any definition, or rough description of abstract objects can clarify these important things in your message which was interesting. As far as I know the following questions don’t have good answers: What abstract objects are; how we know that they exist? What is the distinction between concrete and abstract objects – what is the criterion of distinction? |
objects aren't. Concrete objects can come into existence or can cease to
exist. Abstract objects just are. The integer three just is.
Quote:
|
The notation of objects is also questionable. As far as I know this notation was first introduced by G. Frege. If you use the terms abstract and concrete objects in the context of a certain theory it might be interesting to know which framework you used. I get the impression that these themes are becoming very important in modern mathematics and some other sciences. Vladimir Odrljin |
#54
| |||
| |||
|
|
Whether you can call it a normal form or not is of course largely a matter of definition, but it clearly is different from the other ones. It does for example not remove redundancy or update anomalies, which was pretty much the whole point of the other normal forms. -- Jan Hidders- Hide quoted text - |
Hello Jan. As I told you a few years ago, my “simple form” is the way
in which db design should be done. Now you can see it as part of a
“bigger picture” at
http:// www.dbdesign11.com
Vladimir Odrljin
#55
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Dec 22, 12:13*am, Jan Hidders <hidd... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Whether you can call it a normal form or not is of course largely a matter of definition, but it clearly is different from the other ones. It does for example not remove redundancy or update anomalies, which was pretty much the whole point of the other normal forms. -- Jan Hidders- Hide quoted text - Hello Jan. As I told you a few years ago, my “simple form” is the way in which db design should be done. Now you can see it as part of a “bigger picture” at http://www.dbdesign11.com Vladimir Odrljin |
http://www.dbdesign11.com
#56
| |||
| |||
|
|
Time is the criterion. *Abstract objects are independent of time. * |
correct.
Quote:
|
Concrete objects aren't. *Concrete objects can come into existence or can cease to exist. *Abstract objects just are. *The integer three just is. |
1. integer;
2. the particular number 3;
3. a triad, for example three cars.
For G. Frege “3” in “3 + 5 = 8” is a name. Or “three” in “There are
three cars on the street” is a name.
Frege’s notation of an object is characterized as the kind of thing
which can be the referent of a name. So a number is an object.
Also there are the different kinds of abstract objects regarding
universal and existential quantification (for example numbers and
relations).
As far as I know Frege’s model is the only general model or framework
for abstract objects.
There are some other views. “Some say that what is true or false is
not the sentence, but the meaning or thought expressed by the
sentence.”
There is group of mathematicians and philosophers named “Platonists”
who “believes that there are abstract objects not perceptible to our
senses that exist independently of us. Such objects can be perceived
by us only through our intellect.”
I write about these things because your post in fact is about the
fundamentals.
I use abstract objects in my DB design. I treat abstractions of
properties, attributes, entities, etc. as abstract objects. I pay
attention to identification of objects as crucial
question related to objects. So I have identification of pluralities,
entities, attributes, states etc.
Vladimir Odrljin
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.