J
Jamie Collins
I'm just starting to put all these ideas <<snipped>> together for the first time so
I may have made some mistakes but my intuition tells me that
mathematical set relationships are different than the relationships used
in SQL. If they are somehow analogous to each other in a way that I
don't see yet, I would appreciate some enlightenment.
I certainly follow you (and very interesting too so thanks for
posting).
If the only interested Access MVP's response is "<shrug>" then I guess
we should declare that OT for the Access groups <g>. And note that the
most common mental model round here seems to be 'parent child
relationships', so you'd have a hard time revising that. My approach
is, SQL is SQL, the terms are 'referenced' and 'referencing' and
describe what they do, and while the theory adds interest it can also
frustrate (e.g. you start to get *bothered* by the word 'Relations' in
DAO <g>).
As for enlightenment, I have a list of book recommendations (don't have
them to hand) on the mathematical bases of SQL but because I didn't do
('read'?) mathematics at university I assume I'd find them hard going
(and I'm a little narcoleptic when it comes to bedtime reading <g>).
[Aside: daughter's homework assignment this week is to ask her parents
what mathematics they use in their daily lives, so her teachers are in
for some fun having *my* understanding of set theory, relational
theory, logic, etc conveyed to them by a five year old <g>.]
Jamie.
--