1

From below link on Functional Dependencies under FD Axioms(Armstrong's)

Reference Link on research

I came to know that ab→ c does NOT imply a → c and b → c

But, when I was reading the book "An Introduction to Database Systems" by C.J.Date, on page 279, there is an example that tells about reduction of following set of FDs:

A -> BC
B -> C
A -> B
AB -> C
AC -> D

and under point number 3 of the reduction process it further mentions: Next, we observe that the FD AB -> C can be eliminated, because again we have A -> C, so AB -> CB by augmentation, so AB -> C by decomposition.

So, that means that if A -> C, then we can imply AB -> C.

Assuming we are given the FD AB -> C in a separate case, then let us assume that A -> C, so AB -> C by above deduction, thus our assumption is true. Then, it proves the data in above link false! Is this mathematical approach not correct or I am wrong in a different way? Please throw some light on each perspective!

1

I came to know that ab → c does NOT imply a → c and b → c

Correct. It does not imply either.

....
So, that means that if A -> C, then we can imply AB -> C.

Yes, correct. but the following:

Assuming ... Is this mathematical approach not correct or I am wrong in a different way?

No, A -> C is deducted from A -> BC, not from AB -> C.

A -> BC is just a shorthand notation for A -> B and A -> C

| improve this answer | |
  • But from above discussion, if A -> C then AB -> C, so if AB -> C holds then A -> C also holds pertaining to the same case, thus, if AB -> C then A -> C? Take it like this also - AB -> C then AB->CB by augmentation, and thus A -> C by Composition rule gone backwards (if A -> B and C -> D then AC -> BD, the same rule going backwards i.e.)? – vinaych Feb 25 '17 at 14:25
  • 1
    if A -> C then AB -> C: Correct. if AB -> C then A -> C: Wrong. All men are human but not all human are men. – ypercubeᵀᴹ Feb 25 '17 at 14:27
  • In your men,human case which is which ? A is men and C is human I suppose? – vinaych Feb 25 '17 at 14:29
  • 1
    No, let me rephrase. A=red-hair, B=boy, C=male. Now AB->C (red-hair boy->male) is true. But that doesn't mean that A->C (red-hair -> male) is true. – ypercubeᵀᴹ Feb 25 '17 at 15:55
0

I came to know from below question:

Question on reverse application of Angstrom's axioms

and concluded where I was wrong, where, I was going the reverse way! AB->C thus, does not imply A->C just by assuming A->C and proving AB->C, in a similar way as above question, where, AX->BX cannot imply A->B)

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.