Let R is a relation schema and X, Y ⊆ R. "If Y ⊆ X, then X → Y" represents which of the following inference rules?

Let R is a relation schema and X, Y ⊆ R. "If Y ⊆ X, then X → Y" represents which of the following inference rules? Correct Answer Reflexive

The correct answer is option 2.

Concept:

Let us consider X, Y, and Z are sets of attributes in a relation to R.

Reflexive Functional Dependencies:

Let R be a relation scheme and let X ⊆ R and Y ⊆ R. We say that a relation instance r(R) satisfies a functional dependency X → Y if for every pair of tuples t1 ∈ r and t2 ∈ r if t1 = t2 then t1 = t2. (or)

Reflexivity:

If X is a set of attributes, and Y is a set of attributes that are completely contained in X, then X implies Y.

If Y is a subset of X, then X → Y

Example:

Mobile, Name →Name

Augmentation:

If X implies Y, and Z is a set of attributes, then if X implies Y, then XZ implies YZ.

If X → Y, then XZ → YZ

Example:

Id→Name then Id, address→Name, address

Transitivity:

If X implies Y and Y imply Z, then X implies Z.

If X → Y and Y → Z, then X → Z

Example:

Id→contact_number and Contact_number→ state then Id→Contact_number, state.

Hence the correct answer is Reflexive.

Related Questions

In the question below, are given a statement followed by three courses of actions numbered I, II and III. On the basis of the information given, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the following suggested courses of actions logically follow(s) for pursuing. Statement: Soon VAT 69 whiskey and Smirnoff Vodka will not be found on the shelves of Delhi Liquor stores owing to the duplication of barcode by manufacturer United Limited. The Delhi government financial commissioner blacklisted the manufacturer. Financial commissioner Anindo Majumdar had said in an order dated September 14, that USL had violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 by using unauthorized and loose barcodes, which could be easily misused. Courses of action: I. The ban will force United Spirits Limited not to sell its liquor in the national capital for two years. II. the appellant violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Delhi Excise Rules, 2010, the terms and conditions of the license issued to it and the standard operating procedure framed by the Delhi Excise Department and that consequently the department has rightly imposed the penalty of blacklisting under Rule 70 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 upon United Spirits LTD (USL), Aurangabad. III. United Limited has been blacklisted by the Delhi government financial commissioner.