3 ms·
> Of course you can; it is in the very definition of the Table which is a manifestation of a Relation. You said multiple relations earlier, which is what the c
by randomdata 3y ago
> Of course you can; it is in the very definition of the Table which is a manifestation of a Relation.
You said multiple relations earlier, which is what the comment was in reply to. Why the fliply-flopping?
> Relationships
Relation, not relations, not relationships. The struggle is real.
> all Relations are Tables
Yes, that's right, a relation is a table with additional constraints – a superset. Although not a strict superset as it does not carry ordering forward.
- rramadass 3y agoYou seem to be confused between the mathematical definition of a Relation and the English usage of the word "Relation". > You said multiple relations earlier, which is what the comment was in reply to. Why the fliply-flopping? Read my definition above again; I said "multiple sets" and NOT "multiple relations" which is a very different thing. You understood it wrong. > Relation, not relations, not relationships. The struggle is real. Only for you. I have been very clear in the usage of my terms above. A Table encodes a Relation. Additionally, when you do a JOIN across Tables you are manifesting a "Relationship" (English usage) which may/may not result in a Mathematical Relation. > a relation is a table with additional constraints – a superset. No, If there are additional constraints on set A than on set B then A cannot be a superset of B but a subset.