Line 2,502:
Line 2,502:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
−
<pre>
+
Clearly, if any relation is (≤''c'')-regular on one of its domains ''X''<sub>''j''</sub> and also (≥''c'')-regular on the same domain, then it must be (=''c'')-regular on the affected domain ''X''<sub>''j''</sub>, in effect, ''c''-regular at ''j''.
−
Clearly, if any relation is (=<c)-regular on one
−
of its domains X_j and also (>=c)-regular on the
−
same domain, then it must be (=c)-regular on the
−
affected domain X_j, in effect, c-regular at j.
−
For example, let G = {r, s, t} and H = {1, ..., 9},
+
For example, let ''G'' = {''r'', ''s'', ''t'} and ''H'' = {1, …, 9}, and consider the 2-adic relation ''F'' ⊆ ''G'' × ''H'' that is bigraphed here:
−
and consider the 2-adic relation F c G x H that is
−
bigraphed here:
+
<pre>
r s t
r s t
o o o G
o o o G
Line 2,519:
Line 2,514:
o o o o o o o o o H
o o o o o o o o o H
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
+
</pre>
−
We observe that F is 3-regular at G and 1-regular at H.
+
We observe that ''F'' is 3-regular at ''G'' and 1-regular at ''H''.
−
</pre>
===Commentary Note 11.9===
===Commentary Note 11.9===