Relation (mathematics) - Revision history

Jon Awbrey: update

2015-11-14T17:08:09Z

update

Show changes

Jon Awbrey: update

2015-11-13T18:12:44Z

update

Jon Awbrey: update

2015-11-12T21:12:13Z

update

Show changes

Jon Awbrey: Category:Charles Sanders Peirce

2011-10-29T19:14:38Z

Category:Charles Sanders Peirce

Jon Awbrey: /* Document history */ fill out doc history

2010-06-21T20:03:03Z

Document history: fill out doc history

Jon Awbrey: /* Peer nodes */ + 2

2010-06-21T19:54:07Z

Peer nodes: + 2

Jon Awbrey: /* Information, Inquiry */

2010-05-23T11:53:26Z

Information, Inquiry

Jon Awbrey: /* Syllabus */ update

2010-05-22T15:14:08Z

Syllabus: update

Jon Awbrey at 03:56, 18 May 2010

2010-05-18T03:56:08Z

Jon Awbrey: /* Informal introduction */

2010-05-18T03:50:39Z

Informal introduction

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 For one thing, databases are designed to deal with empirical data, and experience is always finite, whereas mathematics is nothing if not concerned with infinity, at the very least, potential infinity.  This difference in perspective brings up a number of ideas that are usefully introduced at this point, if by no means covered in depth.
-==Example: Divisibility==
+==Example 1. Divisibility==
 A more typical example of a two-place relation in mathematics is the relation of ''divisibility'' between two positive integers <math>n\!</math> and <math>m\!</math> that is expressed in statements like <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} n ~\text{divides}~ m {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> or <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} n ~\text{goes into}~ m {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math>&nbsp; This is a relation that comes up so often that a special symbol <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} | {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> is reserved to express it, allowing one to write <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} n|m {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> for <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} n ~\text{divides}~ m {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math>
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 ==Formal definitions==
-There are two definitions of k-place relations that are commonly encountered in mathematics.  In order of simplicity, the first of these definitions is as follows:
+There are two definitions of <math>k\!</math>-place relations that are commonly encountered in mathematics.&nbsp; In order of simplicity, the first of these definitions is as follows:
-'''Definition 1.''' A '''relation''' ''L'' over the [[set]]s ''X''<sub>1</sub>, …, ''X''<sub>''k''</sub> is a [[subset]] of their [[cartesian product]], written ''L'' &sube; ''X''<sub>1</sub> &times; … &times; ''X''<sub>''k''</sub>.  Under this definition, then, a ''k''-ary relation is simply a set of ''k''-[[tuple]]s.
+'''Definition 1.''' &nbsp; A '''relation''' <math>L\!</math> over the sets <math>X_1, \ldots, X_k\!</math> is a subset of their cartesian product, written <math>L \subseteq X_1 \times \ldots \times X_k.\!</math>&nbsp; Under this definition, then, a <math>k\!</math>-ary relation is simply a set of <math>k\!</math>-tuples.
-The second definition makes use of an idiom that is common in mathematics, stipulating that "such and such is an ''n''-tuple" in order to ensure that such and such a mathematical object is determined by the specification of ''n'' component mathematical objects.  In the case of a relation ''L'' over ''k'' sets, there are ''k'' + 1 things to specify, namely, the ''k'' sets plus a subset of their cartesian product.  In the idiom, this is expressed by saying that ''L'' is a (''k''+1)-tuple.
+The second definition makes use of an idiom that is common in mathematics, saying that &ldquo;such and such is an <math>n\!</math>-tuple&rdquo; to mean that the mathematical object being defined is determined by the specification of <math>n\!</math> component mathematical objects.&nbsp; In the case of a relation <math>L\!</math> over <math>k\!</math> sets, there are <math>k + 1\!</math> things to specify, namely, the <math>k\!</math> sets plus a subset of their cartesian product.&nbsp; In the idiom, this is expressed by saying that <math>L\!</math> is a <math>(k+1)\!</math>-tuple.
-'''Definition 2.''' A '''relation''' ''L'' over the sets ''X''<sub>1</sub>, …, ''X''<sub>''k''</sub> is a (''k''+1)-tuple ''L'' = (''X''<sub>1</sub>, …, ''X''<sub>''k''</sub>, ''G''(''L'')), where ''G''(''L'') is a subset of the cartesian product ''X''<sub>1</sub> &times; … &times; ''X''<sub>''k''</sub>.  ''G''(''L'') is called the ''[[graph]]'' of ''L''.
+'''Definition 2.''' &nbsp; A '''relation''' <math>L\!</math> over the sets <math>X_1, \ldots, X_k\!</math> is a <math>(k+1)\!</math>-tuple <math>L = (X_1, \ldots, X_k, \mathrm{graph}(L)),\!</math> where <math>\mathrm{graph}(L)\!</math> is a subset of the cartesian product <math>X_1 \times \ldots \times X_k~\!</math> called the ''graph'' of <math>L.\!</math>
-Elements of a relation are more briefly denoted by using boldface characters, for example, the constant element <math>\mathbf{a}</math> = (a<sub>1</sub>,&nbsp;…,&nbsp;a<sub>''k''</sub>) or the variable element <math>\mathbf{x}</math> = (''x''<sub>1</sub>,&nbsp;…,&nbsp;''x''<sub>''k''</sub>).
+Elements of a relation are sometimes denoted by using boldface characters, for example, the constant element <math>\mathbf{a} = (a_1, \ldots, a_k)\!</math> or the variable element <math>\mathbf{x} = (x_1, \ldots, x_k).\!</math>
-A statement of the form "<math>\mathbf{a}</math> is in the relation ''L''&nbsp;" is taken to mean that <math>\mathbf{a}</math> is in ''L'' under the first definition and that <math>\mathbf{a}</math> is in ''G''(''L'') under the second definition.
+A statement of the form &ldquo;<math>\mathbf{a}\!</math> is in the relation <math>L\!</math>&rdquo; is taken to mean that <math>\mathbf{a}\!</math> is in <math>L\!</math> under the first definition and that <math>\mathbf{a}\!</math> is in <math>\mathrm{graph}(L)\!</math> under the second definition.
 The following considerations apply under either definition:
@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 Due to the convergence of many different styles of study on the same areas of interest, the reader will find much variation in usage here.  The variation presented in this article treats a relation as the [[set theory|set-theoretic]] ''[[extension (semantics)|extension]]'' of a relational concept or term.  Another variation reserves the term 'relation' to the corresponding logical entity, either the ''[[comprehension (logic)|logical comprehension]]'', which is the totality of ''[[intension]]s'' or abstract ''[[property (philosophy)|properties]]'' that all of the elements of the relation in extension have in common, or else the symbols that are taken to denote these elements and intensions.  Further, but hardly finally, some writers of the latter persuasion introduce terms with more concrete connotations, like 'relational structure', for the set-theoretic extension of a given relational concept.
-==Example: coplanarity==
+==Example 2. Coplanarity==
 For lines ''L'' in three-dimensional space, there is a ternary relation picking out the triples of lines that are [[coplanar]]. This ''does not'' reduce to the binary [[symmetric relation]] of coplanarity of pairs of lines.
@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ==Bibliography==
-* [[Nicolas Bourbaki|Bourbaki, N.]] (1994), ''Elements of the History of Mathematics'', John Meldrum (trans.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
+* Bourbaki, N. (1994), ''Elements of the History of Mathematics'', John Meldrum (trans.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
-* [[Paul Richard Halmos|Halmos, P.R.]] (1960), ''Naive Set Theory'', D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ.
+* Halmos, P.R. (1960), ''Naive Set Theory'', D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ.
-* [[Francis William Lawvere|Lawvere, F.W.]], and [[Robert Rosebrugh|Rosebrugh, R.]] (2003), ''Sets for Mathematics'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
+* Lawvere, F.W., and Rosebrugh, R. (2003), ''Sets for Mathematics'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
-* Maddux, R.D. (2006), ''Relation Algebras'', vol.&nbsp;150 in 'Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics', Elsevier Science.
+* Maddux, R.D. (2006), ''Relation Algebras'', vol.&nbsp;150 in Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Elsevier Science.
-* Mili, A., Desharnais, J., Mili, F., with Frappier, M. (1994), ''Computer Program Construction'', Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
+* Mili, A., Desharnais, J., Mili, F., with Frappier, M. (1994), ''Computer Program Construction'', Oxford University Press, New&nbsp;York, NY.
-* [[Marvin L. Minsky|Minsky, M.L.]], and [[Seymour A. Papert|Papert, S.A.]] (1969/1988), ''[[Perceptron]]s, An Introduction to Computational Geometry'', MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969. Expanded edition, 1988.
+* Minsky, M.L., and Papert, S.A. (1969/1988), ''Perceptrons, An Introduction to Computational Geometry'', MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969. Expanded edition, 1988.
-* [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, C.S.]] (1984), ''Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition, Volume 2, 1867-1871'', Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
+* [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, C.S.]] (1984), ''Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition, Volume&nbsp;2, 1867&ndash;1871'', Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
-* [[Josiah Royce|Royce, J.]] (1961), ''The Principles of Logic'', Philosophical Library, New York, NY.
+* Royce, J. (1961), ''The Principles of Logic'', Philosophical Library, New&nbsp;York, NY.
-* [[Alfred Tarski|Tarski, A.]] (1956/1983), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Papers from 1923 to 1938'', J.H. Woodger (trans.), 1st edition, Oxford University Press, 1956.  2nd edition, J. Corcoran (ed.), Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 1983.
+* Tarski, A. (1956/1983), ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Papers from 1923 to 1938'', J.H. Woodger (trans.), 1st&nbsp;edition, Oxford University Press, 1956.  2nd&nbsp;edition, J. Corcoran (ed.), Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 1983.
-* [[Stanisław Marcin Ulam|Ulam, S.M.]] (1990), ''Analogies Between Analogies : The Mathematical Reports of S.M. Ulam and His Los Alamos Collaborators'', A.R. Bednarek and Françoise Ulam (eds.), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
+* Ulam, S.M. (1990), ''Analogies Between Analogies : The Mathematical Reports of S.M. Ulam and His Los&nbsp;Alamos Collaborators'', A.R. Bednarek and Françoise Ulam (eds.), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
-* [[Paulus Venetus|Venetus, P.]] (1984), ''Logica Parva, Translation of the 1472 Edition with Introduction and Notes'', Alan R. Perreiah (trans.), Philosophia Verlag, Munich, Germany.
+* Venetus, P. (1984), ''Logica Parva, Translation of the 1472 Edition with Introduction and Notes'', Alan R. Perreiah (trans.), Philosophia Verlag, Munich, Germany.
 ==Syllabus==

@@ Line 272: / Line 272: @@
 [[Category:Open Educational Resource]]
 [[Category:Peer Educational Resource]]
 [[Category:Logic]]
 [[Category:Mathematics]]
 [[Category:Relation Theory]]
 [[Category:Set Theory]]

@@ Line 255: / Line 255: @@
 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://www.getwiki.net/-Relation_(mathematics) Relation (mathematics)], [http://www.getwiki.net/ GetWiki]
+{{col-begin}}
+{{col-break}}
-* [http://wikinfo.org/index.php/Relation_(mathematics) Relation (mathematics)], [http://wikinfo.org/index.php/Main_Page Wikinfo]
+* [http://mywikibiz.com/Relation_(mathematics) Relation], [http://mywikibiz.com/ MyWikiBiz]
+* [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Relation_(mathematics) Relation], [http://beta.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity Beta]
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relation_(mathematics)&oldid=73324659 Relation (mathematics)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]
+{{col-break}}
 <br><sharethis />

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 * [http://mathweb.org/wiki/Relation_(mathematics) Relation @ MathWeb Wiki]
 * [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/Relation_(mathematics) Relation @ NetKnowledge]
 {{col-break}}
 * [http://p2pfoundation.net/Relation_(mathematics) Relation @ P2P Foundation]
 * [http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Relation_(mathematics) Relation @ SemanticWeb]
 {{col-end}}

@@ Line 228: / Line 228: @@
 {{col-break}}
 * [[Pragmatic maxim]]
-* [[Pragmatic theory of truth]]
+* [[Truth theory]]
 {{col-end}}

@@ Line 219: / Line 219: @@
 {{col-break}}
 * [[Inquiry]]
 * [[Logic of information]]
 {{col-break}}
@@ Line 226: / Line 229: @@
 * [[Pragmatic maxim]]
 * [[Pragmatic theory of truth]]
 {{col-end}}
 ===Related articles===
 * [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Introduction_to_Inquiry_Driven_Systems Jon Awbrey, &ldquo;Introduction To Inquiry Driven Systems&rdquo;]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 The definition of ''relation'' given in the next Section formally captures a concept that is actually quite familiar from everyday life.  For example, consider the relationship, involving three roles that people might play, expressed in a statement of the form "''X'' suspects that ''Y'' likes ''Z''&nbsp;".  The facts of a concrete situation could be organized in a Table like the following:
-{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="background:f8f8ff; text-align:center; width:60%"
+{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="background:#f8f8ff; text-align:center; width:60%"
 |+ '''Relation S :  X suspects that Y likes Z'''
-|- style="background:e6e6ff"
+|- style="background:#e6e6ff"
 ! Person X !! Person Y !! Person Z
 |-