Ok so relations are defined as

1:1 - (one to one) 1:n - (one to many) m:1 - (many to one) m:n - (many to many)

I was wondering why "n" and not “m”

1:1 - (one to one) 1:m - (one to many) m:1 - (many to one) m:m - (many to many)

not that it’s a big deal just curios..

Thanks Bert

n is just a common replacement for 'any number', e.g. n tier, n^0=1, etc.

bertcord wrote:

Ok so relations are defined as

1:1 - (one to one) 1:n - (one to many) m:1 - (many to one) m:n - (many to many)

I was wondering why "n" and not “m”

1:1 - (one to one) 1:m - (one to many) m:1 - (many to one) m:m - (many to many)

not that it’s a big deal just curios..

m and n are used to illustrate that they don't have to be the same necessarily. an m:n relation means that there are probably more 'm's than 'n's, a m:m relation suggests that there are always the same objects on either side of the relation. I think that's the reason. (but I'm just guessing here, this is the reason why I use m:n and not n:n or m:m )