12,080
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 23, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchupdate
<font size="3">☞</font> This page belongs to resource collections on [[Logic Live|Logic]] and [[Inquiry Live|Inquiry]].
<font size="3">☞</font> This page belongs to resource collections on [[Logic Live|Logic]] and [[Inquiry Live|Inquiry]].
In [[logic]] and [[mathematics]], '''relation reduction''' and '''relational reducibility''' have to do with the extent to which a given [[relation (mathematics)|relation]] is determined by a set of other relations, called the ''relation dataset''. The relation under examination is called the ''reductandum''. The relation dataset typically consists of a specified relation over sets of relations, called the ''reducer'', the ''method of reduction'', or the ''relational step'', plus a set of other relations, called the ''reduciens'' or the ''relational base'', each of which is properly simpler in a specified way than the relation under examination.
In logic and mathematics, '''relation reduction''' and '''relational reducibility''' have to do with the extent to which a given [[relation (mathematics)|relation]] is determined by a set of other relations, called the ''relation dataset''. The relation under examination is called the ''reductandum''. The relation dataset typically consists of a specified relation over sets of relations, called the ''reducer'', the ''method of reduction'', or the ''relational step'', plus a set of other relations, called the ''reduciens'' or the ''relational base'', each of which is properly simpler in a specified way than the relation under examination.
A question of relation reduction or relational reducibility is sometimes posed as a question of '''relation reconstruction''' or '''relational reconstructibility''', since a useful way of stating the question is to ask whether the reductandum can be reconstructed from the reduciens.
A question of relation reduction or relational reducibility is sometimes posed as a question of '''relation reconstruction''' or '''relational reconstructibility''', since a useful way of stating the question is to ask whether the reductandum can be reconstructed from the reduciens.
==Discussion==
==Discussion==
The main thing that keeps the general problem of relational reducibility from being fully well-defined is that one would have to survey all of the conceivable ways of "getting new relations from old" in order to say precisely what is meant by the claim that the relation <math>L\!</math> is reducible to the set of relations <math>\{ L_j : j \in J \}.</math> This amounts to claiming one can be given a set of ''properly simpler'' relations <math>L_j\!</math> for values <math>j\!</math> in a given index set <math>J\!</math> and that this collection of data would suffice to fix the original relation <math>L\!</math> that one is seeking to analyze, determine, specify, or synthesize.
The main thing that keeps the general problem of relational reducibility from being fully well-defined is that one would have to survey all of the conceivable ways of “getting new relations from old” in order to say precisely what is meant by the claim that the relation <math>L\!</math> is reducible to the set of relations <math>\{ L_j : j \in J \}.\!</math> This amounts to claiming one can be given a set of ''properly simpler'' relations <math>L_j\!</math> for values <math>j\!</math> in a given index set <math>J\!</math> and that this collection of data would suffice to fix the original relation <math>L\!</math> that one is seeking to analyze, determine, specify, or synthesize.
In practice, however, apposite discussion of a particular application typically settles on either one of two different notions of reducibility as capturing the pertinent issues, namely:
In practice, however, apposite discussion of a particular application typically settles on either one of two different notions of reducibility as capturing the pertinent issues, namely:
The work of intuiting how projections operate on multidimensional relations is often facilitated by keeping in mind the following sort of geometric image:
The work of intuiting how projections operate on multidimensional relations is often facilitated by keeping in mind the following sort of geometric image:
* Picture a ''k''-adic relation ''L'' as a body that resides in a ''k''-dimensional space ''X''. If the domains of the relation ''L'' are ''X''<sub>1</sub>, …, ''X''<sub>''k''</sub> , then the ''extension'' of the relation ''L'' is a subset of the cartesian product ''X'' = ''X''<sub>1</sub> × … × ''X''<sub>''k''</sub> .
* Picture a <math>k\!</math>-adic relation <math>L\!</math> as a body that resides in a <math>k\!</math>-dimensional space <math>X.\!</math> If the domains of the relation <math>L\!</math> are <math>X_1, \ldots, X_k,\!</math> then the ''extension'' of the relation <math>L\!</math> is a subset of the cartesian product <math>X = X_1 \times \ldots \times X_k.\!</math>
In this setting, the interval ''K'' = [1, ''k''] = {1, …, ''k''} is called the ''[[index set]]'' of the ''[[indexed family]]'' of sets ''X''<sub>1</sub>, …, ''X''<sub>''k''</sub> .
In this setting the interval <math>K = [1, k] = \{ 1, \ldots, k \}\!</math> is called the ''index set'' of the ''indexed family'' of sets <math>X_1, \ldots, X_k.\!</math>
For any subset ''F'' of the index set ''K'', there is the corresponding subfamily of sets, {''X''<sub>''j''</sub> : ''j'' ∈ ''F'' }, and there is the corresponding cartesian product over this subfamily, notated and defined as ''X''<sub>''F''</sub> = <font size="+2">Π</font><sub>''j'' ∈ ''F''</sub> ''X''<sub>''j''</sub>.
For any subset <math>F\!</math> of the index set <math>K,\!</math> there is the corresponding subfamily of sets, <math>\{ X_j : j \in F \},\!</math> and there is the corresponding cartesian product over this subfamily, notated and defined as <math>\textstyle X_F = \prod_{j \in F} X_j.\!</math>
For any point ''x'' in ''X'', the ''projection'' of ''x'' on the subspace ''X''<sub>''F''</sub> is notated as proj<sub>''F''</sub>(''x'').
For any point <math>x\!</math> in <math>X,\!</math> the ''projection'' of <math>x\!</math> on the subspace <math>X_F\!</math> is notated as <math>\mathrm{proj}_F (x).\!</math>
More generally, for any relation ''L'' ⊆ ''X'', the projection of ''L'' on the subspace ''X''<sub>''F''</sub> is written as proj<sub>''F''</sub>(''L''), or still more simply, as proj<sub>''F''</sub> ''L''.
More generally, for any relation <math>L \subseteq X,\!</math> the projection of <math>L\!</math> on the subspace <math>X_F\!</math> is written as <math>\mathrm{proj}_F (L)\!</math> or still more simply as <math>\mathrm{proj}_F L.\!</math>
The question of ''projective reduction'' for k-adic relations can be stated with moderate generality in the following way:
The question of ''projective reduction'' for <math>k\!</math>-adic relations can be stated with moderate generality in the following way:
* Given a set of k-place relations in the same space ''X'' and a set of projections from X to the associated subspaces, do the projections afford sufficient data to tell the different relations apart?
* Given a set of <math>k\!</math>-place relations in the same space <math>X\!</math> and a set of projections from <math>X\!</math> to the associated subspaces, do the projections afford sufficient data to tell the different relations apart?
==Projective reducibility of triadic relations==
==Projective reducibility of triadic relations==
===Examples of projectively irreducible relations===
===Examples of projectively irreducible relations===
The 3-adic relations '''L'''<sub>0</sub> and '''L'''<sub>1</sub> are shown in the next two Tables:
The 3-adic relations <math>L_0\!</math> and <math>L_1\!</math> are shown in the next two Tables:
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:60%"
<br>
|+ '''L'''<sub>0</sub> = {(''x'', ''y'', ''z'') ∈ '''B'''<sup>3</sup> : ''x'' + ''y'' + ''z'' = 0}
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:60%"
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>L_0 ~=~ \{ (x, y, z) \in \mathbb{B}^3 : x + y + z = 0 \}\!</math>
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>X\!</math> || <math>Y\!</math> || <math>Z\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:60%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:60%"
|+ '''L'''<sub>1</sub> = {(''x'', ''y'', ''z'') ∈ '''B'''<sup>3</sup> : ''x'' + ''y'' + ''z'' = 1}
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>L_1 ~=~ \{ (x, y, z) \in \mathbb{B}^3 : x + y + z = 1 \}\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>X\!</math> || <math>Y\!</math> || <math>Z\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
A ''2-adic projection'' of a 3-adic relation ''L'' is the 2-adic relation that results from deleting one column of the table for ''L'' and then deleting all but one row of any resulting rows that happen to be identical in content. In other words, the multiplicity of any repeated row is ignored.
A ''2-adic projection'' of a 3-adic relation <math>L\!</math> is the 2-adic relation that results from deleting one column of the table for <math>L\!</math> and then deleting all but one row of any resulting rows that happen to be identical in content. In other words, the multiplicity of any repeated row is ignored.
In the case of the above two relations, '''L'''<sub>0</sub>, '''L'''<sub>1</sub> ⊆ ''X'' × ''Y'' × ''Z'' <u>≈</u> '''B'''<sup>3</sup>, the 2-adic projections are indexed by the columns or domains that remain, as shown in the following Tables.
In the case of the above two relations, <math>{L_0, L_1 ~\subseteq~ X \times Y \times Z ~\cong~ \mathbb{B}^3},\!</math> the 2-adic projections are indexed by the columns or domains that remain, as shown in the following Tables.
<br>
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>0</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XY} L_0\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>X\!</math> || <math>Y\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>0</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XZ} L_0\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>X\!</math> || <math>Z\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>0</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{YZ} L_0\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>Y\!</math> || <math>Z\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|}
|}
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>1</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XY} L_1\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>X\!</math> || <math>Y\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>1</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XZ} L_1\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>X\!</math> || <math>Z\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>1</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{YZ} L_1\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| <math>Y\!</math> || <math>Z\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''1'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''0'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''0''' || '''0'''
| <math>0\!</math> || <math>0\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''1''' || '''1'''
| <math>1\!</math> || <math>1\!</math>
|}
|}
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
It is clear on inspection that the following three equations hold:
It is clear on inspection that the following three equations hold:
{| align="center" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
| proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>0</sub>) = proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>1</sub>)
| <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XY}(L_0) ~=~ \mathrm{proj}_{XY}(L_1)~\!</math>
| proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>0</sub>) = proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>1</sub>)
| <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XZ}(L_0) ~=~ \mathrm{proj}_{XZ}(L_1)~\!</math>
| proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>0</sub>) = proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>1</sub>)
| <math>\mathrm{proj}_{YZ}(L_0) ~=~ \mathrm{proj}_{YZ}(L_1)~\!</math>
|}
|}
These equations say that '''L'''<sub>0</sub> and '''L'''<sub>1</sub> cannot be distinguished from each other solely on the basis of their 2-adic projection data. In such a case, either relation is said to be ''irreducible with respect to 2-adic projections''. Since reducibility with respect to 2-adic projections is the only interesting case where it concerns the reduction of 3-adic relations, it is customary to say more simply of such a relation that it is ''projectively irreducible'', the 2-adic basis being understood. It is immediate from the definition that projectively irreducible relations always arise in non-trivial multiplets of mutually indiscernible relations.
These equations say that <math>L_0\!</math> and <math>L_1\!</math> cannot be distinguished from each other solely on the basis of their 2-adic projection data. In such a case, each relation is said to be ''irreducible with respect to 2-adic projections''. Since reducibility with respect to 2-adic projections is the only interesting case where it concerns the reduction of 3-adic relations, it is customary to say more simply of such a relation that it is ''projectively irreducible'', the 2-adic basis being understood. It is immediate from the definition that projectively irreducible relations always arise in non-trivial multiplets of mutually indiscernible relations.
===Examples of projectively reducible relations===
===Examples of projectively reducible relations===
The 3-adic relations '''L'''<sub>A</sub> and '''L'''<sub>B</sub> are shown in the next two Tables:
The 3-adic relations <math>L_\mathrm{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\mathrm{B}\!</math> are shown in the next two Tables:
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:60%"
<br>
|+ '''L'''<sub>A</sub> = Sign Relation of Interpreter A
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:60%"
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>L_\mathrm{A} ~=~ \text{Sign Relation of Interpreter A}\!</math>
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| style="width:33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
| style="width:33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
| style="width:33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"i"''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"i"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"u"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"u"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:60%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:60%"
|+ '''L'''<sub>B</sub> = Sign Relation of Interpreter B
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>L_\mathrm{B} ~=~ \text{Sign Relation of Interpreter B}\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| style="width:33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
| style="width:33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
| style="width:33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"u"''' || '''"A"'''
|<math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"u"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"i"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"i"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
In the case of the two sign relations, '''L'''<sub>A</sub>, '''L'''<sub>B</sub> ⊆ ''X'' × ''Y'' × ''Z'' <u>≈</u> '''O''' × '''S''' × '''I''', the 2-adic projections are indexed by the columns or domains that remain, as shown in the following Tables.
In the case of the two sign relations, <math>L_\mathrm{A}, L_\mathrm{B} ~\subseteq~ X \times Y \times Z ~\cong~ O \times S \times I,\!</math> the 2-adic projections are indexed by the columns or domains that remain, as shown in the following Tables.
<br>
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>A</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XY}(L_\mathrm{A})\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>A</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XZ}(L_\mathrm{A})\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>A</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{YZ}(L_\mathrm{A})\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"A"''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"A"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"i"''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"i"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"B"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"B"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"u"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"u"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
{| align="center" style="width:90%"
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>B</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XY}(L_\mathrm{B})\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>B</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XZ}(L_\mathrm{B})\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''A''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>\mathrm{A}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''B''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>\mathrm{B}\!</math> || <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
|
|
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
|+ proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>B</sub>)
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\mathrm{proj}_{YZ}(L_\mathrm{B})\!</math>
|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
|- style="height:40px; background:ghostwhite"
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
| width="50%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"A"''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"A"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"u"''' || '''"A"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"u"''' || '''"u"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"B"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"B"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"i"''' || '''"B"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|-
|-
| '''"i"''' || '''"i"'''
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \mathrm{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math>
|}
|}
|}
|}
<br>
<br>
It is clear on inspection that the following three inequations hold:
It is clear on inspection that the following three inequalities hold:
{| align="center" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:center; width:90%"
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" style="text-align:left; width:90%"
| proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>A</sub>) ≠ proj<sub>''XY''</sub>('''L'''<sub>B</sub>)
| <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XY}(L_\mathrm{A}) ~\ne~ \mathrm{proj}_{XY}(L_\mathrm{B})\!</math>
| proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>A</sub>) ≠ proj<sub>''XZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>B</sub>)
| <math>\mathrm{proj}_{XZ}(L_\mathrm{A}) ~\ne~ \mathrm{proj}_{XZ}(L_\mathrm{B})\!</math>
| proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>A</sub>) ≠ proj<sub>''YZ''</sub>('''L'''<sub>B</sub>)
| <math>\mathrm{proj}_{YZ}(L_\mathrm{A}) ~\ne~ \mathrm{proj}_{YZ}(L_\mathrm{B})\!</math>
|}
|}
These inequations say that '''L'''<sub>A</sub> and '''L'''<sub>B</sub> can be distinguished from each other solely on the basis of their 2-adic projection data. But this is not enough to say that either one of them is projectively reducible to their 2-adic projection data. To say that a 3-adic relation is projectively reducible in that respect, one has to show that it can be distinguished from ''every'' other 3-adic relation on the basis of the 2-adic projection data alone.
These inequalities say that <math>L_\mathrm{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\mathrm{B}\!</math> can be distinguished from each other solely on the basis of their 2-adic projection data. But this is not enough to say that either one of them is projectively reducible to their 2-adic projection data. To say that a 3-adic relation is projectively reducible in that respect, one has to show that it can be distinguished from ''every'' other 3-adic relation on the basis of the 2-adic projection data alone.
In other words, to show that a 3-adic relation ''L'' on '''O''' × '''S''' × '''I''' is ''reducible'' or ''reconstructible'' in the 2-adic projective sense, it is necessary to show that no distinct ''L′'' on '''O''' × '''S''' × '''I'''
In other words, to show that a 3-adic relation <math>L\!</math> on <math>O \times S \times I\!</math> is ''reducible'' or ''reconstructible'' in the 2-adic projective sense, it is necessary to show that no distinct <math>L'\!</math> on <math>O \times S \times I\!</math> exists such that <math>L\!</math> and <math>L'\!</math> have the same set of projections. Proving this takes a much more comprehensive or exhaustive investigation of the space of possible relations on <math>O \times S \times I\!</math> than looking merely at one or two relations at a time.
exists such that ''L'' and ''L′'' have the same set of projections. Proving this takes a much more comprehensive or exhaustive investigation of the space of possible relations on '''O''' × '''S''' × '''I''' than looking merely at one or two relations at a time.
'''Fact.''' As it happens, each of the relations '''L'''<sub>A</sub> and '''L'''<sub>B</sub> is uniquely determined by its 2-adic projections. This can be seen by following the proof that is given below.
'''Fact.''' As it happens, each of the relations <math>L_\mathrm{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\mathrm{B}\!</math> is uniquely determined by its 2-adic projections. This can be seen by following the proof that is given below.
Before tackling the proof, however, it will speed things along to recall a few ideas and notations from other articles.
Before tackling the proof, however, it will speed things along to recall a few ideas and notations from other articles.
* If ''L'' is a relation over a set of domains that includes the domains ''U'' and ''V'', then the abbreviated notation ''L''<sub>''UV'' </sub> can be used for the projection proj<sub>''UV'' </sub>(''L'').
* If <math>L\!</math> is a relation over a set of domains that includes the domains <math>U\!</math> and <math>V,\!</math> then the abbreviated notation <math>L_{UV}\!</math> can be used for the projection <math>\mathrm{proj}_{UV}(L).\!</math>
* The operation of reversing a projection asks what elements of a bigger space project onto given elements of a smaller space. The set of elements that project onto ''x'' under a given projection ''f'' is called the ''[[image (mathematics)|fiber]]'' of ''x'' under ''f'' and is written ''f''<sup>–1</sup>(''x'') or ''f''<sup>–1</sup>''x''.
* The operation of reversing a projection asks what elements of a bigger space project onto given elements of a smaller space. The set of elements that project onto <math>x\!</math> under a given projection <math>f\!</math> is called the ''fiber'' of <math>x\!</math> under <math>f\!</math> and is written <math>f^{-1}(x)\!</math> or <math>f^{-1}x.\!</math>
* If ''X'' is a finite set, the ''cardinality'' of ''X'', written card(''X'') or |''X''|, means the number of elements in ''X''.
* If <math>X\!</math> is a finite set, the ''cardinality'' of <math>X,\!</math> written <math>\mathrm{card}(X)\!</math> or <math>|X|,\!</math> means the number of elements in <math>X.\!</math>
'''Proof.''' Let ''L'' be either one of the relations '''L'''<sub>A</sub> or '''L'''<sub>B</sub>. Consider any coordinate position (''s'', ''i'') in the '''SI'''-plane '''S''' × '''I'''. If (''s'', ''i'') is not in ''L''<sub>'''SI'''</sub> then there can be no element (''o'', ''s'', ''i'') in ''L'', therefore we may restrict our attention to positions (''s'', ''i'') in ''L''<sub>'''SI'''</sub>, knowing that there exist at least |''L''<sub>'''SI'''</sub>| = 8 elements in ''L'', and seeking only to determine what objects ''o'' exist such that (''o'', ''s'', ''i'') is an element in the ''fiber'' of (''s'', ''i''). In other words, for what ''o'' in '''O''' is (''o'', ''s'', ''i'') in the fiber proj<sub>'''SI'''</sub><sup>–1</sup>(''s'', ''i'') ? Now, the circumstance that ''L''<sub>'''OS'''</sub> has exactly one element (''o'', ''s'') for each coordinate ''s'' in '''S''' and that ''L''<sub>'''OI'''</sub> has exactly one element (''o'', ''i'') for each coordinate ''i'' in '''I''', plus the "coincidence" of it being the same ''o'' at any one choice for (''s'', ''i''), tells us that ''L'' has just the one element (''o'', ''s'', ''i'') over each point of '''S''' × '''I'''. All together, this proves that both '''L'''<sub>A</sub> and '''L'''<sub>B</sub> are reducible in an informative sense to 3-tuples of 2-adic relations, that is, they are ''projectively 2-adically reducible''.
'''Proof.''' Let <math>L\!</math> be either one of the relations <math>L_\mathrm{A}\!</math> or <math>L_\mathrm{B}.\!</math> Consider any coordinate position <math>(s, i)\!</math> in the <math>SI\!</math>-plane <math>S \times I.\!</math> If <math>(s, i)\!</math> is not in <math>L_{SI}\!</math> then there can be no element <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> in <math>L,\!</math> therefore we may restrict our attention to positions <math>(s, i)\!</math> in <math>L_{SI},\!</math> knowing that there exist at least <math>|L_{SI}| = 8\!</math> elements in <math>L,\!</math> and seeking only to determine what objects <math>o\!</math> exist such that <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> is an element in the ''fiber'' of <math>(s, i).\!</math> In other words, for what <math>o\!</math> in <math>O\!</math> is <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> in the fiber <math>\mathrm{proj}_{SI}^{-1}(s, i)?\!</math> Now, the circumstance that <math>L_{OS}\!</math> has exactly one element <math>(o, s)\!</math> for each coordinate <math>s\!</math> in <math>S\!</math> and that <math>L_{OI}\!</math> has exactly one element <math>(o, i)\!</math> for each coordinate <math>i\!</math> in <math>I,\!</math> plus the “coincidence” of it being the same <math>o\!</math> at any one choice for <math>(s, i),\!</math> tells us that <math>L\!</math> has just the one element <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> over each point of <math>S \times I.\!</math> All together, this proves that both <math>L_\mathrm{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\mathrm{B}\!</math> are reducible in an informative sense to 3-tuples of 2-adic relations, that is, they are ''projectively 2-adically reducible''.
===Summary===
===Summary===
===Focal nodes===
===Focal nodes===
* [[Inquiry Live]]
* [[Inquiry Live]]
* [[Logic Live]]
* [[Logic Live]]
===Peer nodes===
===Peer nodes===
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ InterSciWiki]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ MyWikiBiz]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ MyWikiBiz]
* [http://ref.subwiki.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ Subject Wikis]
* [http://ref.subwiki.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ Subject Wikis]
* [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ Wikiversity]
* [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ Wikiversity Beta]
* [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction @ Wikiversity Beta]
===Logical operators===
===Logical operators===
===Related articles===
===Related articles===
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Semiotic_Information Jon Awbrey, “Semiotic Information”]
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Introduction_to_Inquiry_Driven_Systems Jon Awbrey, “Introduction To Inquiry Driven Systems”]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Cactus_Language Cactus Language]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs Futures Of Logical Graphs]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Essays/Prospects_For_Inquiry_Driven_Systems Jon Awbrey, “Prospects For Inquiry Driven Systems”]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems]
{{col-break}}
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry_Driven_Systems Jon Awbrey, “Inquiry Driven Systems : Inquiry Into Inquiry”]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_:_Introduction Differential Logic : Introduction]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Propositional_Calculus Differential Propositional Calculus]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems Jon Awbrey, “Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems”]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_2.0 Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems]
{{col-break}}
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Differential_Logic_:_Introduction Jon Awbrey, “Differential Logic : Introduction”]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Introduction_to_Inquiry_Driven_Systems Introduction to Inquiry Driven Systems]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems]
* [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/DifferentialPropositionalCalculus.html Jon Awbrey, “Differential Propositional Calculus”]
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Systems Inquiry Driven Systems : Inquiry Into Inquiry]
{{col-end}}
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_2.0 Jon Awbrey, “Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems”]
==Document history==
==Document history==
Portions of the above article were adapted from the following sources under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]], under other applicable licenses, or by permission of the copyright holders.
Portions of the above article were adapted from the following sources under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]], under other applicable licenses, or by permission of the copyright holders.
* [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/ InterSciWiki]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz]
* [http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://semanticweb.org/ Semantic Web]
* [http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://semanticweb.org/ Semantic Web]
* [http://planetmath.org/RelationReduction Relation Reduction], [http://planetmath.org/ PlanetMath]
* [http://ref.subwiki.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://ref.subwiki.org/ Subject Wikis]
* [http://getwiki.net/-Relational_Reduction Relation Reduction], [http://getwiki.net/ GetWiki]
* [http://wikinfo.org/w/index.php/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://wikinfo.org/w/ Wikinfo]
* [http://wikinfo.org/index.php/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://wikinfo.org/ Wikinfo]
* [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://en.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity]
* [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relation Reduction], [http://beta.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity Beta]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relation_reduction&oldid=39828834 Relation Reduction], [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relation_reduction&oldid=39828834 Relation Reduction], [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]
[[Category:Charles Sanders Peirce]]
[[Category:Charles Sanders Peirce]]
[[Category:Combinatorics]]
[[Category:Combinatorics]]
[[Category:Discrete Mathematics]]
[[Category:Discrete Mathematics]]
[[Category:Formal Sciences]]
[[Category:Formal Sciences]]
[[Category:Inquiry]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Relation Theory]]
[[Category:Relation Theory]]
[[Category:Semiotics]]
[[Category:Set Theory]]
[[Category:Set Theory]]
