Comment by randomdata

1 year ago

> multiple sets

Right. As before, you cannot build a table on top of a relation. You can build a relation on top of a table, though.

> Tables are a weaker form of Relations

Yes, exactly, hence it being a subset.

> you cannot build a table on top of a relation

Of course you can; it is in the very definition of the Table which is a manifestation of a Relation. Relationships (which can also be mathematical Relations) across Tables/Views are a different thing.

> hence it being a subset.

No, all Relations are Tables but not all Tables are Relations because of ordering, duplicates, nulls.

  • > 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.

    • You 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.