>Ed,
>
>Sorry for negate the EOT, but I've got to say the following
>
>>I'll agree that Jim is quite knowledgable about RDBMS; I'd say that you've got some serious failures of understanding if you are attempting to directly equate the relational calculus operator set used to prove the mathematical validity of relational operations with SQL, which is a partial reflection of the underlying mathemtical model.
>
>I do not quite uderstand what you're saying here.

The relational calculus is the underlying basis for the relational data model. SQL implments a (theoretically) platform-independent language with the approximate expressiveness of the relational calculus which describes the desired solution set behavior rather specifying a process to achieve it. SQL is not tied soley to the relational model; it provides a common subset language which can be used to work with databases other than an RDBMS.

You seem to equate SQL to RDBMS; SQL is applicable to other than relational model databases. In fact, one of the best things about the SQL abstraction is the ability to apply the same syntactic constructs regardless of the underlying data model.

I've got fairly strong grounding in the underlying mathematics of set theory and the relational calculus, and from my POV, you don't understand what you're talking about.

I'm not interested in debating this or any other topic with you. IMO, your idea is bad, your understanding of RDBMS and the relationship of SQL to RDBMS is incomplete at best, and you're not looking to accomplish anything other than wasting time and bandwidth.