Jump to content

Talk:Finitary relation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article suxx

[edit]

It mostly goes over the binary relations material oven and over. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of relations

[edit]

There isn't much theory in the Theory of relations wiki article. Just a reiteration of what's here plus a few more definitions. A merge seems in order. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After removing the seemingly WP:OR parts from the "theory" article there wasn't much of substance left in it so I've effected the merge as a redirect. If someone finds some reliable sources (not crowdsourced math wikis) for the material, feel free to restore either here or in its own article if deemed substantive enough. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsets

[edit]

About this part: "any set (such as the collection of Nobel laureates) can be viewed as a collection of individuals having some property (such as that of having been awarded the Nobel prize)"

Any set is a subset. (That is why there is no set of all sets.) Therefore a unary relation assigns (selects the members of) a subset, not a set just from empty nothing.188.6.76.241 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Informal introduction

[edit]

'Mathematically, then, a relation is simply an "ordered set"' — No; it is a set of ordered tuples, not ordered set. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second definition

[edit]

Presently the article contains this definition:

Definition 2. A relation L over the sets X1, …, Xk is a (k + 1)-tuple L = (X1, …, XkG(L)), where G(L) is a subset of the Cartesian product X1 × … × Xk. G(L) is called the graph of L.

With no reference given, is there an editor defending this definition? — Rgdboer (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As both category theory and relations are concerned with composition (of arrows and of relations, respectively), there is some interplay. Indeed, J. Lambek and P.J. Scott (1986) Introduction to Higher-order Categorical Logic, page 186 describes the category of relations, where the arrows are triples:

(α, | f |, β) and f ⊆ α x β.

They write "We often call | f | the graph of f." Further, from the computational point of view, the context of a relation is not to be presumed, so setting the cross product of sets containing the relation is required. Thus software requirements reach into definitions. — Rgdboer (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]