Ed,

>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 never said this.

>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.

From my POV the opposite. We disagree here.

>I'm not interested in debating this or any other topic with you.

You've got your emotions regarding me as a person coming into play here..

>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.

It's clear you don't agree with my POV of (R)DBMSs, SQL and the relational theory but this way you're saying something you can't backup. I've got no idea why you want to react this way ed. Next time you might better say it onto my face you don't like me, then it's clear for everyone that you don't want to debate me. So next time, if you don't want to debate, don't reply to any of my messages. EOT.

Walter,