if x->a and y-> b
then
from x->a == xy-->ay [ir2] xy-->a [ir4]
from y->b == xy-->xb [ir2] xy-->b [ir4]
therefore xy-->ab [ir5]
But elmasri navathe says , x-->a and y-->b DOES NOT IMPLY xy-->ab
i am just starting with functional dependency , so could some one point out what i am missing ?
I just checked C J DATE , where in chapter 11 , page 339 it lists a rule called composition , if a->b , c->d then ac->bd , so that answers part of my query but am curious as to why it says otherwise in navathe .