Professional Documents
Culture Documents
en.wikipedia.org
Chapter 1
Accessibility relation
In modal logic, an accessibility relation R is a binary relation such that R W W where W is a set of possible
worlds. The accessibility relation determines for each world w W which worlds w are accessible from w . If a
possible world w is accessible from w we usually write wRw (or sometimes Rww ).
A statement in logic refers to a sentence (with a subject, predicate, and verb) that can be true or false. So, The
room is cold' is a statement because it contains a subject, predicate and verb, and it can be true that 'the room is cold'
or false that 'the room is cold.'
Generally, commands, beliefs and sentences about probabilities aren't judged as true or false. Inhale and exhale is
therefore not a statement in logic because it is a command and cannot be true or false, although a person can obey or
refuse that command. I believe I can y or I can't y isn't taken as a statement of truth or falsity, because beliefs
don't say anything about the truth or falsity of the parts of the entire and or or statement and therefore the entire
and or or statement.
A possible world is a possible situation. In every case, a possible world is contrasted with an actual situation. Earth
one minute from now is a possible world. Earth as it is actually is is also a possible world. Hence the oddity
of and controversy in contrasting a possible world with an actual world (Earth is necessarily possible). In logic,
worlds are described as a non-empty set, where the set could consist of anything, depending on what the statement
says.
Modal Logic is a description of the reasoning in making statements about possibility or necessity. It is possible that
it rains tomorrow is a statement in modal logic, because it is a statement about possibility. It is necessary that it
rains tomorrow also counts as a statement in modal logic, because it is a statement about necessity. There are at
least six logical axioms or principles that show what people mean whenever they make statements about necessity or
possibility (described below).[1]
As described in greater detail below:
Necessarily p means that p is true at every 'possible world' w such that R(w , w).
Possibly p means that p is true at some possible world w such that R(w , w) .
Truth-Value is whether a statement is true or false. Whether or not a statement is true, in turn, depends on the
meanings of words, laws of logic, or experience (observation, hearing, etc.).
Formal Semantics refers to the meaning of statements written in symbols. The sentence (p q) (p q) ,
for example, is a statement about 'necessity' in 'formal semantics.' It has a meaning that can be represented by the
symbol R .
The 'accessibility relation' is a relationship between two 'possible worlds.' More preciselyplease clarify denition , the
'accessibility relation' is the idea that modal statements, like 'its possible that it rains tomorrow,' may not take the
same truth-value in all 'possible worlds.' On earth, the statement could be true or false. By contrast, in a planet where
water is non-existent, this statement will always be false.
2
1.2. BASIC REVIEW OF (PROPOSITIONAL) MODAL LOGIC 3
Due to the diculty in judging if a modal statement is true in every 'possible world,' logicians have derived certain
axioms or principles that show on what basis any statement is true in any 'possible world.' These axioms describing
the relationship between 'possible worlds is the 'accessibility relation' in detail.
Put another way, these modal axioms describe in detail the 'accessibility relation,' R between two 'worlds.' That
relation, R symbolizes that from any given 'possible world' some other 'possible worlds may be accessible, and others
may not be.
The accessibility relation has important uses in both the formal/theoretical aspects of modal logic (theories about
'modal logic'). It also has applications to a variety of disciplines including epistemology (theories about how people
know something is true or false), metaphysics (theories about reality), value theory (theories about morality and
ethics), and computer science (theories about programmatic manipulation of data).
p p (Duality)
The double arrow stands symbolizes 'if and only if,' 'necessary and sucient' conditions. A 'necessary' condition is
something that must be the case for something else. Being literate, for instance, is a 'necessary' condition for reading
about the 'accessibility relation.' A 'sucient condition' a condition that is good enough for something else. Being
literate, for instance, is a 'sucient' condition for learning about the accessibility relation.' In other words, it is enough
to be literate in order to learn about the 'accessibility relation,' but may not be 'necessary' because the relation could be
learned in dierent ways (such as through speech). Aside from 'necessary and sucient,' the double arrow represents
equivalence between the meaning of two statements, the statement to the left and the statement to the right of the
double arrow.
The half square symbols before the diamond and p symbol in the sentence ' p p ' stand for 'it is not the
case, or 'not.'
The p symbol stands for any statement such as 'I walk outside.' Therefore it could also stand for 'The apple is Red.'
Example 1:
The rst principle says that any statement involving 'necessity' on the left side of the double arrow is equivalent to the
statement about the negation of 'possibility' on the right.
4 CHAPTER 1. ACCESSIBILITY RELATION
So using the symbols and their meaning, the rst modal axiom, p p could stand for: 'Its necessary that I
walk outside if and only if its not possible that it is not the case that I walk outside.'
And when I say that 'Its necessary that I walk outside,' this is the same as saying that 'Its not possible that it is not
the case that I walk outside.' Furthermore, when I say that 'Its not possible that it is not the case that I walk outside,'
this is the same as saying that 'Its necessary that I walk outside.'
Example 2:
p stands for 'The apple is red.'
So using the symbols and their meaning described above, the rst modal axiom, p p could stand for: 'Its
necessary that the apple is red if and only if its not possible that it is not the case that the apple is red.'
And when I say that 'Its necessary that the apple is red,' this is the same as saying that 'Its not possible that it is not
the case that the apple is red.' Furthermore, when I say that 'Its not possible that it is not the case that the apple is
red,' this is the same as saying that 'Its necessary that the apple is red.'
Second Modal Axiom:
p p (Duality)
Example 1:
The second principle says that any statement involving 'possibility' on the left side of the double arrow is the same as
the statement about the negation of 'necessity' on the right.
p stands for 'Spring has not arrived.'
Using the symbols and their meaning described above, the second modal axiom, p p could stand for: 'Its
possible that Spring has not arrived if and only if it is not the case that it is necessary that it is not the case that Spring
has not arrived.'
Essentially, the second axiom says that any statement about possibility called 'X' is the same as a negation or denial
of a dierent statement about necessity 'Y.' The statement about necessity shows the denial of the same original
statement 'X.'
The other axioms can be read and interpreted in the same way, by substituting letters p for any statement and following
the reasoning. Brackets in a symbolized sentence mean that anything inside the brackets counts as a whole sentence.
Any symbol before the brackets therefore applies to the sentence as a whole, not just the letters or an individual
sentence.
An arrow stands for then where the left statement before the arrow is the if of the entire sentence.
Other Modal Axioms:
* (p q) (p q)
* (p q) (p q)
* (p q) (p q) (Kripke property)
Most of the other axioms concerning the modal operators are controversial and not widely agreed upon. Here are the
most commonly used and discussed of these:
(T) p p
(4) p p
(5) p p
(B) p p
Here, "(T)","(4)","(5)", and "(B)" represent the traditional names of these axioms (or principles).
According to the traditional 'possible worlds semantics of modal logic, the compound sentences that are formed out
of the modal operators are to be interpreted in terms of quantication over possible worlds, subject to the relation
1.3. THE FOUR TYPES OF THE 'ACCESSIBILITY RELATION' IN FORMAL SEMANTICS 5
(TS) Necessarily p means that p is true at every 'possible world' w such that R(w , w) .
Possibly p means that p is true at some possible world w such that R(w , w) .
The four types of R will be a variation of these two general types. They will specify on what conditions a statement
is true either in every possible world, or some possible. The four specic types of R are:
Reexive, or *Axiom (T) above:
If R is reexive, every world is accessible to itself. Reexivity guarantees that any world at which A is true is a
world from which there is an accessible world at which A is true, and thus A is possible at worlds where its true,
which isn't necessarily the case in worlds that aren't accessible to themselves. Without the reexivity condition, A
can be necessary at a world where its false, if that world isn't accessible to itself; thus axiom Tthat A at a world
implies A is true at that worldfollows from reexivity.
Transitive, or *Axiom (4) above:
If R is transitive, any world accessible to any world w accessible to world w is also accessible to w . Transitively,
A is true at a world w only when A is true at every world w accessible to w , including every world w
accessible to any w , and every world accessible to any w , etc., so when A is true at w , its also true at every
w and every w , etc., which means A is also true at w , which is axiom 4.
Euclidean or *Axiom (5) above:
If R is euclidean, any two worlds accessible to a given world are accessible to each other. A is true at a world w
if and only if, for every world w accessible to w , there is a world w accessible to w at which A is true. If A
is true at a world w accessible to w , then if that world is accessible to every other world accessible to w , it will
be true that for every world accessible to w there is an accessible world ( w ) at which A is true, so A is true at
all worlds accessible to w . The euclidean property thus entails that A implies A , which is axiom 5.
Symmetric or *Axiom (B) above:
If R is symmetric, then if world w is accessible to world w , w is accessible to w . If A is true at w , then at
every w accessible to w , there is a world ( w ) accessible to w at which A is true, so A is possible at all w ,
and thus its necessary at w that A is possible, which is axiom B.
(TSN) P is nomologically necessary means that P is true at all possible worlds that are nomologically accessible
from the actual world. In other words, P is true at all possible worlds that obey the physical laws of the actual
world.
The interesting thing to observe is that instead of having to ask, now, Does nomological necessity satisfy the axiom
(5)?", that is, Is something that is nomologically possible nomologically necessarily possible?", we can ask instead:
Is the nomological accessibility relation euclidean?" And dierent theories of the nature of physical laws will result
in dierent answers to this question. (Notice however that if the objection raised earlier is true, each dierent theory
of the nature of physical laws would be 'possible' and 'necessary,' since the euclidean concept depends on the idea
about 'possibility' and 'necessity'). The theory of Lewis, for example, is asymmetric. His counterpart theory also
requires an intransitive relation of accessibility because it is based on the notion of similarity and similarity is generally
intransitive. For example, a pile of straw with one less handful of straw may be similar to the whole pile but a pile
with two (or more) less handfuls may not be. So x can be necessarily P without x being necessarily necessarily P
. On the other hand, Saul Kripke has an account of de re modality which is based on (metaphysical) identity across
worlds and is therefore transitive.
Another interpretation of the 'accessibility relation' with a physical meaning was given in Gerla 1987 where the claim
is possible P in the world w is interpreted as it is possible to transform w into a world in which P is true. So,
the properties of the modal operators depend on the algebraic properties of the set of admissible transformations.
There are other applications of the 'accessibility relation' in philosophy. In epistemology, one can, instead of talking
about nomological accessibility, talk about epistemic accessibility. A world w is epistemically accessible from w
for an individual I in w if and only if I does not know something which would rule out the hypothesis that w = w
. We can ask whether the relation is transitive. If I knows nothing that rules out the possibility that w = w and
knows nothing that rules the possibility that w = w , it does not follow that I knows nothing which rules out the
hypothesis that w = w . To return to our earlier example, one may not be able to distinguish a pile of sand from the
same pile with one less handful and one may not be able to distinguish the pile with one less handful from the same
pile with two less handfuls of sand, but one may still be able to distinguish the original pile from the pile with two
less handfuls of sand.
Yet another example of the use of the 'accessibility relation' is in deontic logic. If we think of obligatoriness as truth
in all morally perfect worlds, and permissibility as truth in some morally perfect world, then we will have to restrict
out universe to include only morally perfect worlds. But, in that case, we will have left out the actual world. A better
alternative would be to include all the metaphysically possible worlds but restrict the 'accessibility relation' to morally
perfect worlds. Transitivity and the euclidean property will hold, but reexivity and symmetry will not.
Possible worlds
Propositional attitude
Modal depth
1.7 References
[1] For a detailed explanation on modal logic, see here.
1.7. REFERENCES 7
Gerla, G.; Transformational semantics for rst order logic, Logique et Analyse, No. 117118, pp. 6979,
1987.
Fitelson, Brandon; Notes on Accessibility and Modality, 2003.
Lewis, David K.; Counterpart Theory and Quantied Modal Logic (subscription required) , The Journal of Philosophy,
Vol. LXV, No. 5 (1968-03-07), pp. 113126, 1968
List of Logic Systems List of most of the more popular modal logics.
Chapter 2
In the mathematical eld of category theory, an allegory is a category that has some of the structure of the category
of sets and binary relations between them. Allegories can be used as an abstraction of categories of relations, and in
this sense the theory of allegories is a generalization of relation algebra to relations between dierent sorts. Allegories
are also useful in dening and investigating certain constructions in category theory, such as exact completions.
In this article we adopt the convention that morphisms compose from right to left, so RS means rst do S, then do
R".
2.1 Denition
An allegory is a category in which
intersections are idempotent (RR = R), commutative (RS = SR), and associative (RS)T = R(ST);
anti-involution distributes over intersection ((RS) = SR);
composition is semi-distributive over intersection (R(ST)RSRT, (RS)TRTST); and
the modularity law is satised: (RST(RTS)S).
Here, we are abbreviating using the order dened by the intersection: "RS" means "R = RS".
A rst example of an allegory is the category of sets and relations. The objects of this allegory are sets, and a morphism
X Y is a binary relation between X and Y. Composition of morphisms is composition of relations; intersection of
morphisms is intersection of relations.
8
2.3. REFERENCES 9
using equivalence classes or using bicategories). If the category C has products, a relation between X and Y is the
same thing as a monomorphism into XY (or an equivalence class of such). In the presence of pullbacks and a proper
factorization system, one can dene the composition of relations. The composition of XRYSZ is found by
rst pulling back the cospan RYS and then taking the jointly-monic image of the resulting span XRSZ.
Composition of relations will be associative if the factorization system is appropriately stable. In this case one can
consider a category Rel(C), with the same objects as C, but where morphisms are relations between the objects. The
identity relations are the diagonals XXX.
Recall that a regular category is a category with nite limits and images in which covers are stable under pullback. A
regular category has a stable regular epi/mono factorization system. The category of relations for a regular category
is always an allegory. Anti-involution is dened by turning the source/target of the relation around, and intersections
are intersections of subobjects, computed by pullback.
2.3 References
Peter Freyd, Andre Scedrov (1990). Categories, Allegories. Mathematical Library Vol 39. North-Holland.
ISBN 978-0-444-70368-2.
Peter Johnstone (2003). Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium. Oxford Science Publications.
OUP. ISBN 0-19-852496-X.
Chapter 3
In mathematics, more specically in multilinear algebra, an alternating multilinear map is a multilinear map with
all arguments belonging to the same space (e.g., a bilinear form or a multilinear form) that is zero whenever any two
adjacent arguments are equal.
The notion of alternatization (or alternatisation in British English) is used to derive an alternating multilinear map
from any multilinear map with all arguments belonging to the same space.
3.1 Denition
A multilinear map of the form f : V n W is said to be alternating if f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = 0 whenever there exists
1 i n 1 such that xi = xi+1 . [1][2]
3.2 Example
In a Lie algebra, the multiplication is an alternating bilinear map called the Lie bracket.
3.3 Properties
If any distinct pair of components of an alternating multilinear map are equal, then such a map is zero:[1][3]
If the components of an alternating multilinear map are linearly dependent, then such a map is zero.
If any component xi of an alternating multilinear map is replaced by xi + c xj for any j i and c in the base ring
R, then the value of that map is not changed.[3]
If n! is a unit in the base ring R, then every antisymmetric n-multilinear form is alternating.
3.4 Alternatization
Properties
10
3.5. SEE ALSO 11
Bilinear map
Exterior algebra Alternating multilinear forms
Map (mathematics)
Multilinear algebra
Multilinear map
Multilinear form
Symmetrization
3.6 Notes
[1] Lang 2002, pp. 511512.
3.7 References
Bourbaki, N. (2007). Elments de mathmatique. Algbre Chapitres 1 3 (reprint ed.). Springer.
Dummit, David S.; Foote, Richard M. (2004). Abstract Algebra (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Lang, Serge (2002). Algebra. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. 211 (revised 3rd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-0-
387-95385-4. OCLC 48176673.
Rotman, Joseph J. (1995). An Introduction to the Theory of Groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. 148 (4th
ed.). Springer. ISBN 0-387-94285-8. OCLC 30028913.
Chapter 4
Ancestral relation
In mathematical logic, the ancestral relation (often shortened to ancestral) of a binary relation R is its transitive
closure, however dened in a dierent way, see below.
Ancestral relations make their rst appearance in Frege's Begrisschrift. Frege later employed them in his Grundge-
setze as part of his denition of the nite cardinals. Hence the ancestral was a key part of his search for a logicist
foundation of arithmetic.
4.1 Denition
The numbered propositions below are taken from his Begrisschrift and recast in contemporary notation.
A property P is called R-hereditary if, whenever x is P and xRy holds, then y is also P:
(P x xRy) P y
Frege dened b to be an R-ancestor of a, written aR* b, if b has every R-hereditary property that all objects x such
that aRx have:
98 : (aR b bR c) aR c
Let the notation I(R) denote that R is functional (Frege calls such relations many-one):
12
4.3. DISCUSSION 13
4.3 Discussion
Principia Mathematica made repeated use of the ancestral, as does Quines (1951) Mathematical Logic.
However, it is worth noting that the ancestral relation cannot be dened in rst-order logic. It is controversial whether
second-order logic is really logic at all. Quine famously claimed that it was not, despite his reliance upon it for
his 1951 book (which largely retells Principia in abbreviated form, for which second-order logic is required to t its
theorems).
Transitive closure
4.5 References
George Boolos, 1998. Logic, Logic, and Logic. Harvard Univ. Press.
Ivor Grattan-Guinness, 2000. In Search of Mathematical Roots. Princeton Univ. Press.
Willard Van Orman Quine, 1951 (1940). Mathematical Logic. Harvard Univ. Press. ISBN 0-674-55451-5.
Antisymmetric relation
In mathematics, a binary relation R on a set X is anti-symmetric if there is no pair of distinct elements of X each of
which is related by R to the other. More formally, R is anti-symmetric precisely if for all a and b in X
or, equivalently,
As a simple example, the divisibility order on the natural numbers is an anti-symmetric relation. In this context,
anti-symmetry means that the only way each of two numbers can be divisible by the other is if the two are, in fact,
the same number; equivalently, if n and m are distinct and n is a factor of m, then m cannot be a factor of n.
In mathematical notation, this is:
a, b X, (aRb bRa) a = b
or, equivalently,
a, b X, (aRb a = b bRa).
The usual order relation on the real numbers is anti-symmetric: if for two real numbers x and y both inequalities
x y and y x hold then x and y must be equal. Similarly, the subset order on the subsets of any given set is
anti-symmetric: given two sets A and B, if every element in A also is in B and every element in B is also in A, then A
and B must contain all the same elements and therefore be equal:
ABB AA=B
Partial and total orders are anti-symmetric by denition. A relation can be both symmetric and anti-symmetric (e.g.,
the equality relation), and there are relations which are neither symmetric nor anti-symmetric (e.g., the preys on
relation on biological species).
Anti-symmetry is dierent from asymmetry, which requires both anti-symmetry and irreexivity.
5.1 Examples
The relation "x is even, y is odd between a pair (x, y) of integers is anti-symmetric:
14
5.2. SEE ALSO 15
Symmetry in mathematics
5.3 References
Weisstein, Eric W. Antisymmetric Relation. MathWorld.
Lipschutz, Seymour; Marc Lars Lipson (1997). Theory and Problems of Discrete Mathematics. McGraw-Hill.
p. 33. ISBN 0-07-038045-7.
Chapter 6
Asymmetric relation
a, b X(aRb (bRa))
An example is the "less than" relation < between real numbers: if x < y, then necessarily y is not less than x.The
less than or equal relation , on the other hand, is not asymmetric, because reversing e.g. x x produces x x
and both are true. In general, any relation in which x R x holds for some x (that is, which is not irreexive) is also not
asymmetric.
Asymmetry is not the same thing as not symmetric": the less-than-or-equal relation is an example of a relation that
is neither symmetric nor asymmetric. The empty relation is the only relation that is (vacuously) both symmetric and
asymmetric.
6.1 Properties
Restrictions and inverses of asymmetric relations are also asymmetric. For example, the restriction of < from
the reals to the integers is still asymmetric, and the inverse > of < is also asymmetric.
An asymmetric relation need not be total. For example, strict subset or is asymmetric, and neither of the
sets {1,2} and {3,4} is a strict subset of the other. In general, every strict partial order is asymmetric, and
conversely, every transitive asymmetric relation is a strict partial order. Not all asymmetric relations are strict
partial orders. An example of an asymmetric intransitive relation is the rock-paper-scissors relation: if X beats
Y, then Y does not beat X; but if X beats Y and Y beats Z, then X does not beat Z.
Tarskis axiomatization of the reals part of this is the requirement that < over the real numbers be asymmetric.
16
6.3. REFERENCES 17
6.3 References
[1] Gries, David; Schneider, Fred B. (1993), A Logical Approach to Discrete Math, Springer-Verlag, p. 273.
[2] Nievergelt, Yves (2002), Foundations of Logic and Mathematics: Applications to Computer Science and Cryptography,
Springer-Verlag, p. 158.
[3] Flaka, V.; Jeek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF). Prague: School
of Mathematics - Physics Charles University. p. 1. Lemma 1.1 (iv). Note that this source refers to asymmetric relations
as strictly antisymmetric.
Chapter 7
Better-quasi-ordering
In order theory a better-quasi-ordering or bqo is a quasi-ordering that does not admit a certain type of bad array.
Every bqo is well-quasi-ordered.
7.1 Motivation
Though wqo is an appealing notion, many important innitary operations do not preserve wqoness. An example
due to Richard Rado illustrates this.[1] In a 1965 paper Crispin Nash-Williams formulated the stronger notion of
bqo in order to prove that the class of trees of height is wqo under the topological minor relation.[2] Since then,
many quasi-orders have been proven to be wqo by proving them to be bqo. For instance, Richard Laver established
Frass's conjecture by proving that the class of scattered linear order types is bqo.[3] More recently, Carlos Martinez-
Ranero has proven that, under the Proper Forcing Axiom, the class of Aronszajn lines is bqo under the embeddability
relation.[4]
7.2 Denition
It is common in bqo theory to write x for the sequence x with the rst term omitted. Write []< for the set of
nite, strictly increasing sequences with terms in , and dene a relation on []< as follows: s t if and only if
there is u such that s is a strict initial segment of u and t = u . Note that the relation is not transitive.
A block is an innite subset B of []< that contains an initial segment of every innite subset of B . For a quasi-
order Q a Q -pattern is a function from a block B into Q . A Q -pattern f : B Q is said to be bad if f (s) Q f (t)
for every pair s, t B such that s t ; otherwise f is good. A quasi-order Q is better-quasi-ordered (bqo) if there is
no bad Q -pattern.
In order to make this denition easier to work with, Nash-Williams denes a barrier to be a block whose elements
are pairwise incomparable under the inclusion relation . A Q -array is a Q -pattern whose domain is a barrier. By
observing that every block contains a barrier, one sees that Q is bqo if and only if there is no bad Q -array.
Simpson introduced an alternative denition of bqo in terms of Borel maps [] Q , where [] , the set of innite
subsets of , is given the usual (product) topology.[5]
Let Q be a quasi-order and endow Q with the discrete topology. A Q -array is a Borel function [A] Q for
some innite subset A of . A Q -array f is bad if f (X) Q f ( X) for every X [A] ; f is good otherwise.
The quasi-order Q is bqo if there is no bad Q -array in this sense.
18
7.4. MAJOR THEOREMS 19
7.6 References
[1] Rado, Richard (1954). Partial well-ordering of sets of vectors. Mathematika. 1 (2): 8995. MR 0066441. doi:10.1112/S0025579300000565.
[2] Nash-Williams, C. St. J. A. (1965). On well-quasi-ordering innite trees. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society. 61 (3): 697720. Bibcode:1965PCPS...61..697N. ISSN 0305-0041. MR 0175814. doi:10.1017/S0305004100039062.
[3] Laver, Richard (1971). On Fraisses Order Type Conjecture. The Annals of Mathematics. 93 (1): 89111. JSTOR
1970754. doi:10.2307/1970754.
[4] Martinez-Ranero, Carlos (2011). Well-quasi-ordering Aronszajn lines. Fundamenta Mathematicae. 213 (3): 197211.
ISSN 0016-2736. MR 2822417. doi:10.4064/fm213-3-1.
[5] Simpson, Stephen G. (1985). BQO Theory and Frass's Conjecture. In Manseld, Richard; Weitkamp, Galen. Recursive
Aspects of Descriptive Set Theory. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press. pp. 12438. ISBN 978-0-19-503602-2.
MR 786122.
[6] Laver, Richard (1978). Better-quasi-orderings and a class of trees. In Rota, Gian-Carlo. Studies in foundations and
combinatorics. Academic Press. pp. 3148. ISBN 978-0-12-599101-8. MR 0520553.
Chapter 8
Bidirectional transformation
In computer programming, bidirectional transformations (bx) are programs in which a single piece of code can
be run in several ways, such that the same data are sometimes considered as input, and sometimes as output. For
example, a bx run in the forward direction might transform input I into output O, while the same bx run backward
would take as input versions of I and O and produce a new version of I as its output.
Bidirectional model transformations are an important special case in which a model is input to such a program.
Some bidirectional languages are bijective. The bijectivity of a language is a severe restriction of its bidirectionality,[1]
because a bijective language is merely relating two dierent ways to present the very same information.
More general is a lens language, in which there is a distinguished forward direction (get) that takes a concrete input
to an abstract output, discarding some information in the process: the concrete state includes all the information that
is in the abstract state, and usually some more. The backward direction (put) takes a concrete state and an abstract
state and computes a new concrete state. Lenses are required to obey certain conditions to ensure sensible behaviour.
The most general case is that of symmetric bidirectional transformations. Here the two states that are related typically
share some information, but each also includes some information that is not included in the other.
8.1 Usage
Bidirectional transformations can be used to:
Provide an 'abstract view' to easily manipulate data and write them back to their source
8.2 Vocabulary
A bidirectional program which obeys certain round-trip laws is called a lens.
Augeas is a conguration management library whose lens language is inspired by the Boomerang project
20
8.4. SEE ALSO 21
Reverse computation
8.5 References
[1] http://grace.gsdlab.org/images/e/e2/Nate-short.pdf
[2] http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~{}jnfoster/papers/grace-report.pdf
[3] http://arbre.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~{}hahosoya/papers/bixid.pdf
[4] http://www.brics.dk/xsugar/
Bijection
X Y
1 D
2 B
3 C
4 A
A bijective function, f: X Y, where set X is {1, 2, 3, 4} and set Y is {A, B, C, D}. For example, f(1) = D.
In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function or one-to-one correspondence is a function between the elements
of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and each element of the
other set is paired with exactly one element of the rst set. There are no unpaired elements. In mathematical terms,
22
9.1. DEFINITION 23
a bijective function f: X Y is a one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective) mapping of a set X to a set Y.
A bijection from the set X to the set Y has an inverse function from Y to X. If X and Y are nite sets, then the existence
of a bijection means they have the same number of elements. For innite sets the picture is more complicated, leading
to the concept of cardinal number, a way to distinguish the various sizes of innite sets.
A bijective function from a set to itself is also called a permutation.
Bijective functions are essential to many areas of mathematics including the denitions of isomorphism, homeomorphism,
dieomorphism, permutation group, and projective map.
9.1 Denition
For more details on notation, see Function (mathematics) Notation.
For a pairing between X and Y (where Y need not be dierent from X) to be a bijection, four properties must hold:
Satisfying properties (1) and (2) means that a bijection is a function with domain X. It is more common to see
properties (1) and (2) written as a single statement: Every element of X is paired with exactly one element of Y.
Functions which satisfy property (3) are said to be "onto Y " and are called surjections (or surjective functions).
Functions which satisfy property (4) are said to be "one-to-one functions" and are called injections (or injective
functions).[1] With this terminology, a bijection is a function which is both a surjection and an injection, or using
other words, a bijection is a function which is both one-to-one and onto.
Bijections are sometimes denoted by a two-headed rightwards arrow with tail (U+2916 RIGHTWARDS TWO-
HEADED ARROW WITH TAIL), as in f : X Y. This symbol is a combination of the two-headed rightwards arrow
(U+21A0 RIGHTWARDS TWO HEADED ARROW) sometimes used to denote surjections and the rightwards
arrow with a barbed tail (U+21A3 RIGHTWARDS ARROW WITH TAIL) sometimes used to denote injections.
9.2 Examples
3. Every seat had someone sitting there (there were no empty seats), and
The instructor was able to conclude that there were just as many seats as there were students, without having to count
either set.
The function f: R R, f(x) = 2x + 1 is bijective, since for each y there is a unique x = (y 1)/2 such that f(x)
= y. In more generality, any linear function over the reals, f: R R, f(x) = ax + b (where a is non-zero) is a
bijection. Each real number y is obtained from (paired with) the real number x = (y - b)/a.
The function f: R (-/2, /2), given by f(x) = arctan(x) is bijective since each real number x is paired
with exactly one angle y in the interval (-/2, /2) so that tan(y) = x (that is, y = arctan(x)). If the codomain
(-/2, /2) was made larger to include an integer multiple of /2 then this function would no longer be onto
(surjective) since there is no real number which could be paired with the multiple of /2 by this arctan function.
The exponential function, g: R R, g(x) = ex , is not bijective: for instance, there is no x in R such that g(x) =
1, showing that g is not onto (surjective). However, if the codomain is restricted to the positive real numbers
R+ (0, +) , then g becomes bijective; its inverse (see below) is the natural logarithm function ln.
The function h: R R+ , h(x) = x2 is not bijective: for instance, h(1) = h(1) = 1, showing that h is not one-
0 [0, +) , then h becomes bijective; its inverse
to-one (injective). However, if the domain is restricted to R+
is the positive square root function.
9.4 Inverses
A bijection f with domain X (indicated by f: X Y in functional notation) also denes a relation starting in Y and
going to X (by turning the arrows around). The process of turning the arrows around for an arbitrary function does
not, in general, yield a function, but properties (3) and (4) of a bijection say that this inverse relation is a function with
domain Y. Moreover, properties (1) and (2) then say that this inverse function is a surjection and an injection, that is,
the inverse function exists and is also a bijection. Functions that have inverse functions are said to be invertible. A
function is invertible if and only if it is a bijection.
Stated in concise mathematical notation, a function f: X Y is bijective if and only if it satises the condition
Continuing with the baseball batting line-up example, the function that is being dened takes as input the name of
one of the players and outputs the position of that player in the batting order. Since this function is a bijection, it has
an inverse function which takes as input a position in the batting order and outputs the player who will be batting in
that position.
9.5 Composition
The composition gf of two bijections f: X Y and g: Y Z is a bijection. The inverse of gf is (g f )1 =
(f 1 ) (g 1 ) .
Conversely, if the composition g f of two functions is bijective, we can only say that f is injective and g is surjective.
9.6. BIJECTIONS AND CARDINALITY 25
X Y Z
1 D P
2 B Q
3 C R
9.7 Properties
A function f: R R is bijective if and only if its graph meets every horizontal and vertical line exactly once.
If X is a set, then the bijective functions from X to itself, together with the operation of functional composition
(), form a group, the symmetric group of X, which is denoted variously by S(X), SX, or X! (X factorial).
Bijections preserve cardinalities of sets: for a subset A of the domain with cardinality |A| and subset B of the
codomain with cardinality |B|, one has the following equalities:
If X and Y are nite sets with the same cardinality, and f: X Y, then the following are equivalent:
1. f is a bijection.
2. f is a surjection.
3. f is an injection.
For a nite set S, there is a bijection between the set of possible total orderings of the elements and the set of
bijections from S to S. That is to say, the number of permutations of elements of S is the same as the number
of total orderings of that setnamely, n!.
26 CHAPTER 9. BIJECTION
Multivalued function
9.12 Notes
[1] There are names associated to properties (1) and (2) as well. A relation which satises property (1) is called a total relation
and a relation satisfying (2) is a single valued relation.
[2] Christopher Hollings (16 July 2014). Mathematics across the Iron Curtain: A History of the Algebraic Theory of Semigroups.
American Mathematical Society. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-4704-1493-1.
[3] Francis Borceux (1994). Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 2, Categories and Structures. Cambridge University
Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-521-44179-7.
[4] Pierre A. Grillet (1995). Semigroups: An Introduction to the Structure Theory. CRC Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-8247-
9662-4.
9.13. REFERENCES 27
[5] John Meakin (2007). Groups and semigroups: connections and contrasts. In C.M. Campbell, M.R. Quick, E.F. Robert-
son, G.C. Smith. Groups St Andrews 2005 Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-521-69470-4.
preprint citing Lawson, M. V. (1998). The Mbius Inverse Monoid. Journal of Algebra. 200 (2): 428. doi:10.1006/jabr.1997.7242.
9.13 References
This topic is a basic concept in set theory and can be found in any text which includes an introduction to set theory.
Almost all texts that deal with an introduction to writing proofs will include a section on set theory, so the topic may
be found in any of these:
Earliest Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics: entry on Injection, Surjection and Bijection has the history
of Injection and related terms.
Chapter 10
In mathematics, injections, surjections and bijections are classes of functions distinguished by the manner in which
arguments (input expressions from the domain) and images (output expressions from the codomain) are related or
mapped to each other.
A function maps elements from its domain to elements in its codomain. Given a function f : X Y
The function is injective (one-to-one) if every element of the codomain is mapped to by at most one element
of the domain. An injective function is an injection. Notationally:
x, x X, f (x) = f (x ) x = x .
Or, equivalently (using logical transposition),
x, x X, x = x f (x) = f (x ).
The function is surjective (onto) if every element of the codomain is mapped to by at least one element of the
domain. (That is, the image and the codomain of the function are equal.) A surjective function is a surjection.
Notationally:
The function is bijective (one-to-one and onto or one-to-one correspondence) if every element of the
codomain is mapped to by exactly one element of the domain. (That is, the function is both injective and
surjective.) A bijective function is a bijection.
An injective function need not be surjective (not all elements of the codomain may be associated with arguments),
and a surjective function need not be injective (some images may be associated with more than one argument). The
four possible combinations of injective and surjective features are illustrated in the diagrams to the right.
10.1 Injection
Main article: Injective function
For more details on notation, see Function (mathematics) Notation.
A function is injective (one-to-one) if every possible element of the codomain is mapped to by at most one argument.
Equivalently, a function is injective if it maps distinct arguments to distinct images. An injective function is an
injection. The formal denition is the following.
A function f : X Y is injective if and only if X is empty or f is left-invertible; that is, there is a function g :
f(X) X such that g o f = identity function on X. Here f(X) is the image of f.
28
10.2. SURJECTION 29
X Y Z
1 D P
2 B Q
3 C R
A S
Since every function is surjective when its codomain is restricted to its image, every injection induces a bijection
onto its image. More precisely, every injection f : X Y can be factored as a bijection followed by an inclusion
as follows. Let fR : X f(X) be f with codomain restricted to its image, and let i : f(X) Y be the inclusion
map from f(X) into Y. Then f = i o fR. A dual factorisation is given for surjections below.
The composition of two injections is again an injection, but if g o f is injective, then it can only be concluded
that f is injective. See the gure at right.
Every embedding is injective.
10.2 Surjection
Main article: Surjective function
A function is surjective (onto) if every possible image is mapped to by at least one argument. In other words, every
element in the codomain has non-empty preimage. Equivalently, a function is surjective if its image is equal to its
codomain. A surjective function is a surjection. The formal denition is the following.
A function f : X Y is surjective if and only if it is right-invertible, that is, if and only if there is a function
g: Y X such that f o g = identity function on Y. (This statement is equivalent to the axiom of choice.)
By collapsing all arguments mapping to a given xed image, every surjection induces a bijection dened on a
quotient of its domain. More precisely, every surjection f : X Y can be factored as a non-bijection followed
by a bijection as follows. Let X/~ be the equivalence classes of X under the following equivalence relation: x
~ y if and only if f(x) = f(y). Equivalently, X/~ is the set of all preimages under f. Let P(~) : X X/~ be the
projection map which sends each x in X to its equivalence class [x]~, and let fP : X/~ Y be the well-dened
function given by fP([x]~) = f(x). Then f = fP o P(~). A dual factorisation is given for injections above.
The composition of two surjections is again a surjection, but if g o f is surjective, then it can only be concluded
that g is surjective. See the gure.
30 CHAPTER 10. BIJECTION, INJECTION AND SURJECTION
X Y Z
1 D P
2 B Q
3 C R
4 A
10.3 Bijection
Main article: Bijective function
A function is bijective if it is both injective and surjective. A bijective function is a bijection (one-to-one corre-
spondence). A function is bijective if and only if every possible image is mapped to by exactly one argument. This
equivalent condition is formally expressed as follow.
The function f : X Y is bijective i for all y Y , there is a unique x X such that f (x) = y.
A function f : X Y is bijective if and only if it is invertible, that is, there is a function g: Y X such that
g o f = identity function on X and f o g = identity function on Y. This function maps each image to its unique
preimage.
The composition of two bijections is again a bijection, but if g o f is a bijection, then it can only be concluded
that f is injective and g is surjective. (See the gure at right and the remarks above regarding injections and
surjections.)
The bijections from a set to itself form a group under composition, called the symmetric group.
10.4 Cardinality
Suppose you want to dene what it means for two sets to have the same number of elements. One way to do this is
to say that two sets have the same number of elements if and only if all the elements of one set can be paired with
the elements of the other, in such a way that each element is paired with exactly one element. Accordingly, we can
dene two sets to have the same number of elements if there is a bijection between them. We say that the two sets
have the same cardinality.
Likewise, we can say that set X has fewer than or the same number of elements as set Y if there is an injection
from X to Y . We can also say that set X has fewer than the number of elements in set Y if there is an injection
from X to Y but not a bijection between X and Y .
10.5. EXAMPLES 31
X Y Z
1 D P
2 B Q
3 C R
Bijective composition: the rst function need not be surjective and the second function need not be injective.
10.5 Examples
It is important to specify the domain and codomain of each function since by changing these, functions which we
think of as the same may have dierent jectivity.
For every set X the identity function idX and thus specically R R : x 7 x .
R+ R+ : x 7 x2 and thus also its inverse R+ R+ : x 7 x .
The exponential function exp : R R+ : x 7 ex and thus also its inverse the natural logarithm ln : R+
R : x 7 ln x
R R : x 7 (x 1)x(x + 1) = x3 x
R [1, 1] : x 7 sin(x)
R R : x 7 sin(x)
32 CHAPTER 10. BIJECTION, INJECTION AND SURJECTION
10.6 Properties
For every function f, subset X of the domain and subset Y of the codomain we have X f 1 (f(X)) and
f(f 1 (Y)) Y. If f is injective we have X = f 1 (f(X)) and if f is surjective we have f(f 1 (Y)) = Y.
For every function h : X Y we can dene a surjection H : X h(X) : x h(x) and an injection I : h(X)
Y : x x. It follows that h = I H. This decomposition is unique up to isomorphism.
10.8 History
This terminology was originally coined by the Bourbaki group.
Injective module
Injective function
Permutation
Surjective function
Homogeneous relation
Relation (mathematics)" redirects here. For a more general notion of relation, see nitary relation. For a more
combinatorial viewpoint, see theory of relations. For other uses, see Relation (disambiguation).
In mathematics, a binary relation on a set A is a collection of ordered pairs of elements of A. In other words, it is a
subset of the Cartesian product A2 = A A. More generally, a binary relation between two sets A and B is a subset
of A B. The terms correspondence, dyadic relation and 2-place relation are synonyms for binary relation.
An example is the "divides" relation between the set of prime numbers P and the set of integers Z, in which every
prime p is associated with every integer z that is a multiple of p (but with no integer that is not a multiple of p). In
this relation, for instance, the prime 2 is associated with numbers that include 4, 0, 6, 10, but not 1 or 9; and the
prime 3 is associated with numbers that include 0, 6, and 9, but not 4 or 13.
Binary relations are used in many branches of mathematics to model concepts like "is greater than", "is equal to", and
divides in arithmetic, "is congruent to" in geometry, is adjacent to in graph theory, is orthogonal to in linear
algebra and many more. The concept of function is dened as a special kind of binary relation. Binary relations are
also heavily used in computer science.
A binary relation is the special case n = 2 of an n-ary relation R A1 An, that is, a set of n-tuples where the
jth component of each n-tuple is taken from the jth domain Aj of the relation. An example for a ternary relation on
ZZZ is " ... lies between ... and ..., containing e.g. the triples (5,2,8), (5,8,2), and (4,9,7).
In some systems of axiomatic set theory, relations are extended to classes, which are generalizations of sets. This
extension is needed for, among other things, modeling the concepts of is an element of or is a subset of in set
theory, without running into logical inconsistencies such as Russells paradox.
A binary relation R between arbitrary sets (or classes) X (the set of departure) and Y (the set of destination or
codomain) is specied by its graph G, which is a subset of the Cartesian product X Y. The binary relation R itself
is usually identied with its graph G, but some authors dene it as an ordered triple (X, Y, G), which is otherwise
referred to as a correspondence.[1]
The statement (x, y) G is read "x is R-related to y", and is denoted by xRy or R(x, y). The latter notation corresponds
to viewing R as the characteristic function of the subset G of X Y, i.e. R(x, y) equals to 1 (true), if (x, y) G, and
0 (false) otherwise.
The order of the elements in each pair of G is important: if a b, then aRb and bRa can be true or false, independently
of each other. Resuming the above example, the prime 3 divides the integer 9, but 9 doesn't divide 3.
The domain of R is the set of all x such that xRy for at least one y. The range of R is the set of all y such that xRy
for at least one x. The eld of R is the union of its domain and its range.[2][3][4]
33
34 CHAPTER 11. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
11.1.2 Example
Example: Suppose there are four objects {ball, car, doll, gun} and four persons {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}. Suppose
that John owns the ball, Mary owns the doll, and Venus owns the car. Nobody owns the gun and Ian owns nothing.
Then the binary relation is owned by is given as
R = ({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)}).
Thus the rst element of R is the set of objects, the second is the set of persons, and the last element is a set of ordered
pairs of the form (object, owner).
The pair (ball, John), denoted by RJ means that the ball is owned by John.
Two dierent relations could have the same graph. For example: the relation
({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)})
is dierent from the previous one as everyone is an owner. But the graphs of the two relations are the same.
Nevertheless, R is usually identied or even dened as G(R) and an ordered pair (x, y) G(R)" is usually denoted as
"(x, y) R".[5]
injective (also called left-unique[8] ): for all x and z in X and y in Y it holds that if xRy and zRy then x = z. For
example, the green relation in the diagram is injective, but the red relation is not, as it relates e.g. both x = 5
and z = +5 to y = 25.
functional (also called univalent[9] or right-unique[8] or right-denite[10] ): for all x in X, and y and z in Y
it holds that if xRy and xRz then y = z; such a binary relation is called a partial function. Both relations in
the picture are functional. An example for a non-functional relation can be obtained by rotating the red graph
clockwise by 90 degrees, i.e. by considering the relation x=y2 which relates e.g. x=25 to both y=5 and z=+5.
11.2. SPECIAL TYPES OF BINARY RELATIONS 35
one-to-one (also written 1-to-1): injective and functional. The green relation is one-to-one, but the red is not.
Totality properties (only denable if the sets of departure X resp. destination Y are specied; not to be confused with
a total relation):
left-total:[8] for all x in X there exists a y in Y such that xRy. For example, R is left-total when it is a function
or a multivalued function. Note that this property, although sometimes also referred to as total, is dierent
from the denition of total in the next section. Both relations in the picture are left-total. The relation x=y2 ,
obtained from the above rotation, is not left-total, as it doesn't relate, e.g., x = 14 to any real number y.
surjective (also called right-total[8] or onto): for all y in Y there exists an x in X such that xRy. The green
relation is surjective, but the red relation is not, as it doesn't relate any real number x to e.g. y = 14.
36 CHAPTER 11. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
A function: a relation that is functional and left-total. Both the green and the red relation are functions.
A bijection: a surjective one-to-one or surjective injective function is said to be bijective, also known as
one-to-one correspondence.[11] The green relation is bijective, but the red is not.
11.2.1 Difunctional
Less commonly encountered is the notion of difunctional (or regular) relation, dened as a relation R such that
R=RR1 R.[12]
To understand this notion better, it helps to consider a relation as mapping every element xX to a set xR = { yY
| xRy }.[12] This set is sometimes called the successor neighborhood of x in R; one can dene the predecessor
neighborhood analogously.[13] Synonymous terms for these notions are afterset and respectively foreset.[6]
A difunctional relation can then be equivalently characterized as a relation R such that wherever x1 R and x2 R have a
non-empty intersection, then these two sets coincide; formally x1 R x2 R implies x1 R = x2 R.[12]
As examples, any function or any functional (right-unique) relation is difunctional; the converse doesn't hold. If one
considers a relation R from set to itself (X = Y), then if R is both transitive and symmetric (i.e. a partial equivalence
relation), then it is also difunctional.[14] The converse of this latter statement also doesn't hold.
A characterization of difunctional relations, which also explains their name, is to consider two functions f: A C
and g: B C and then dene the following set which generalizes the kernel of a single function as joint kernel: ker(f,
g) = { (a, b) A B | f(a) = g(b) }. Every difunctional relation R A B arises as the joint kernel of two functions
f: A C and g: B C for some set C.[15]
In automata theory, the term rectangular relation has also been used to denote a difunctional relation. This ter-
minology is justied by the fact that when represented as a boolean matrix, the columns and rows of a difunctional
relation can be arranged in such a way as to present rectangular blocks of true on the (asymmetric) main diagonal.[16]
Other authors however use the term rectangular to denote any heterogeneous relation whatsoever.[7]
reexive: for all x in X it holds that xRx. For example, greater than or equal to () is a reexive relation but
greater than (>) is not.
irreexive (or strict): for all x in X it holds that not xRx. For example, > is an irreexive relation, but is not.
coreexive relation: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then x = y.[19] An example of a coreexive relation
is the relation on integers in which each odd number is related to itself and there are no other relations. The
equality relation is the only example of a both reexive and coreexive relation, and any coreexive relation is
a subset of the identity relation.
The previous 3 alternatives are far from being exhaustive; e.g. the red relation y=x2 from the
above picture is neither irreexive, nor coreexive, nor reexive, since it contains the pair
(0,0), and (2,4), but not (2,2), respectively.
11.4. OPERATIONS ON BINARY RELATIONS 37
symmetric: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then yRx. Is a blood relative of is a symmetric relation,
because x is a blood relative of y if and only if y is a blood relative of x.
antisymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy and yRx then x = y. For example, is anti-symmetric; so is >, but
vacuously (the condition in the denition is always false).[20]
asymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy then not yRx. A relation is asymmetric if and only if it is both
anti-symmetric and irreexive.[21] For example, > is asymmetric, but is not.
transitive: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and yRz then xRz. For example, is ancestor of is transitive,
while is parent of is not. A transitive relation is irreexive if and only if it is asymmetric.[22]
total: for all x and y in X it holds that xRy or yRx (or both). This denition for total is dierent from left total
in the previous section. For example, is a total relation.
trichotomous: for all x and y in X exactly one of xRy, yRx or x = y holds. For example, > is a trichotomous
relation, while the relation divides on natural numbers is not.[23]
Right Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and xRz, then yRz.
Left Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if yRx and zRx, then yRz.
Euclidean: A Euclidean relation is both left and right Euclidean. Equality is a Euclidean relation because if
x=y and x=z, then y=z.
serial: for all x in X, there exists y in X such that xRy. "Is greater than" is a serial relation on the integers. But
it is not a serial relation on the positive integers, because there is no y in the positive integers such that 1>y.[24]
However, "is less than" is a serial relation on the positive integers, the rational numbers and the real numbers.
Every reexive relation is serial: for a given x, choose y=x. A serial relation can be equivalently characterized
as every element having a non-empty successor neighborhood (see the previous section for the denition of this
notion). Similarly an inverse serial relation is a relation in which every element has non-empty predecessor
neighborhood.[13]
set-like (or local): for every x in X, the class of all y such that yRx is a set. (This makes sense only if relations
on proper classes are allowed.) The usual ordering < on the class of ordinal numbers is set-like, while its inverse
> is not.
A relation that is reexive, symmetric, and transitive is called an equivalence relation. A relation that is symmetric,
transitive, and serial is also reexive. A relation that is only symmetric and transitive (without necessarily being
reexive) is called a partial equivalence relation.
A relation that is reexive, antisymmetric, and transitive is called a partial order. A partial order that is total is called
a total order, simple order, linear order, or a chain.[25] A linear order where every nonempty subset has a least element
is called a well-order.
Union: R S X Y, dened as R S = { (x, y) | (x, y) R or (x, y) S }. For example, is the union of >
and =.
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, and S is a binary relation over Y and Z, then the following is a binary relation
over X and Z: (see main article composition of relations)
38 CHAPTER 11. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
Composition: S R, also denoted R ; S (or R S), dened as S R = { (x, z) | there exists y Y, such that (x, y)
R and (y, z) S }. The order of R and S in the notation S R, used here agrees with the standard notational
order for composition of functions. For example, the composition is mother of is parent of yields is
maternal grandparent of, while the composition is parent of is mother of yields is grandmother of.
A relation R on sets X and Y is said to be contained in a relation S on X and Y if R is a subset of S, that is, if x R y
always implies x S y. In this case, if R and S disagree, R is also said to be smaller than S. For example, > is contained
in .
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following is a binary relation over Y and X:
Inverse or converse: R 1 , dened as R 1 = { (y, x) | (x, y) R }. A binary relation over a set is equal to its
inverse if and only if it is symmetric. See also duality (order theory). For example, is less than (<) is the
inverse of is greater than (>).
If R is a binary relation over X, then each of the following is a binary relation over X:
Reexive closure: R = , dened as R = = { (x, x) | x X } R or the smallest reexive relation over X containing
R. This can be proven to be equal to the intersection of all reexive relations containing R.
Reexive reduction: R , dened as R
= R \ { (x, x) | x X } or the largest irreexive relation over X
contained in R.
Transitive closure: R + , dened as the smallest transitive relation over X containing R. This can be seen to be
equal to the intersection of all transitive relations containing R.
Reexive transitive closure: R *, dened as R * = (R + ) = , the smallest preorder containing R.
Reexive transitive symmetric closure: R , dened as the smallest equivalence relation over X containing
R.
11.4.1 Complement
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following too:
The complement S is dened as x S y if not x R y. For example, on real numbers, is the complement of >.
11.4.2 Restriction
The restriction of a binary relation on a set X to a subset S is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x and
y are in S.
If a relation is reexive, irreexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, asymmetric, transitive, total, trichotomous, a partial
order, total order, strict weak order, total preorder (weak order), or an equivalence relation, its restrictions are too.
However, the transitive closure of a restriction is a subset of the restriction of the transitive closure, i.e., in general
not equal. For example, restricting the relation "x is parent of y" to females yields the relation "x is mother of
the woman y"; its transitive closure doesn't relate a woman with her paternal grandmother. On the other hand, the
11.5. SETS VERSUS CLASSES 39
transitive closure of is parent of is is ancestor of"; its restriction to females does relate a woman with her paternal
grandmother.
Also, the various concepts of completeness (not to be confused with being total) do not carry over to restrictions.
For example, on the set of real numbers a property of the relation "" is that every non-empty subset S of R with an
upper bound in R has a least upper bound (also called supremum) in R. However, for a set of rational numbers this
supremum is not necessarily rational, so the same property does not hold on the restriction of the relation "" to the
set of rational numbers.
The left-restriction (right-restriction, respectively) of a binary relation between X and Y to a subset S of its domain
(codomain) is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x (y) is an element of S.
the number of equivalence relations is the number of partitions, which is the Bell number.
The binary relations can be grouped into pairs (relation, complement), except that for n = 0 the relation is its own
complement. The non-symmetric ones can be grouped into quadruples (relation, complement, inverse, inverse com-
plement).
greater than
greater than or equal to
less than
less than or equal to
divides (evenly)
is a subset of
equivalence relations:
equality
is parallel to (for ane spaces)
is in bijection with
isomorphy
independency relation, a symmetric, irreexive relation which is the complement of some dependency relation.
Hasse diagram
Incidence structure
Logic of relatives
Order theory
Triadic relation
11.9 Notes
[1] Encyclopedic dictionary of Mathematics. MIT. 2000. pp. 13301331. ISBN 0-262-59020-4.
[2] Suppes, Patrick (1972) [originally published by D. van Nostrand Company in 1960]. Axiomatic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN
0-486-61630-4.
[3] Smullyan, Raymond M.; Fitting, Melvin (2010) [revised and corrected republication of the work originally published in
1996 by Oxford University Press, New York]. Set Theory and the Continuum Problem. Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-47484-7.
[4] Levy, Azriel (2002) [republication of the work published by Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York in 1979].
Basic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN 0-486-42079-5.
[5] Megill, Norman (5 August 1993). df-br (Metamath Proof Explorer)". Retrieved 18 November 2016.
11.9. NOTES 41
[6] Christodoulos A. Floudas; Panos M. Pardalos (2008). Encyclopedia of Optimization (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business
Media. pp. 299300. ISBN 978-0-387-74758-3.
[7] Michael Winter (2007). Goguen Categories: A Categorical Approach to L-fuzzy Relations. Springer. pp. xxi. ISBN
978-1-4020-6164-6.
[8] Kilp, Knauer and Mikhalev: p. 3. The same four denitions appear in the following:
Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook.
Springer Science & Business Media. p. 506. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
Eike Best (1996). Semantics of Sequential and Parallel Programs. Prentice Hall. pp. 1921. ISBN 978-0-13-
460643-9.
Robert-Christoph Riemann (1999). Modelling of Concurrent Systems: Structural and Semantical Methods in the High
Level Petri Net Calculus. Herbert Utz Verlag. pp. 2122. ISBN 978-3-89675-629-9.
[9] Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7, Chapt. 5
[10] Ms, Stephan (2007), Reasoning on Spatial Semantic Integrity Constraints, Spatial Information Theory: 8th International
Conference, COSIT 2007, Melbourne, Australia, September 1923, 2007, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
4736, Springer, pp. 285302, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74788-8_18
[11] Note that the use of correspondence here is narrower than as general synonym for binary relation.
[12] Chris Brink; Wolfram Kahl; Gunther Schmidt (1997). Relational Methods in Computer Science. Springer Science &
Business Media. p. 200. ISBN 978-3-211-82971-4.
[13] Yao, Y. (2004). Semantics of Fuzzy Sets in Rough Set Theory. Transactions on Rough Sets II. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. 3135. p. 309. ISBN 978-3-540-23990-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27778-1_15.
[14] William Craig (2006). Semigroups Underlying First-order Logic. American Mathematical Soc. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-8218-
6588-0.
[15] Gumm, H. P.; Zarrad, M. (2014). Coalgebraic Simulations and Congruences. Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8446. p. 118. ISBN 978-3-662-44123-7. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44124-4_7.
[16] Julius Richard Bchi (1989). Finite Automata, Their Algebras and Grammars: Towards a Theory of Formal Expressions.
Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 3537. ISBN 978-1-4613-8853-1.
[17] M. E. Mller (2012). Relational Knowledge Discovery. Cambridge University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-521-19021-3.
[18] Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook. Springer
Science & Business Media. p. 496. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
[19] Fonseca de Oliveira, J. N., & Pereira Cunha Rodrigues, C. D. J. (2004). Transposing Relations: From Maybe Functions
to Hash Tables. In Mathematics of Program Construction (p. 337).
[20] Smith, Douglas; Eggen, Maurice; St. Andre, Richard (2006), A Transition to Advanced Mathematics (6th ed.), Brooks/Cole,
p. 160, ISBN 0-534-39900-2
[21] Nievergelt, Yves (2002), Foundations of Logic and Mathematics: Applications to Computer Science and Cryptography,
Springer-Verlag, p. 158.
[22] Flaka, V.; Jeek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF). Prague: School
of Mathematics Physics Charles University. p. 1. Lemma 1.1 (iv). This source refers to asymmetric relations as strictly
antisymmetric.
[24] Yao, Y.Y.; Wong, S.K.M. (1995). Generalization of rough sets using relationships between attribute values (PDF).
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Joint Conference on Information Sciences: 3033..
[25] Joseph G. Rosenstein, Linear orderings, Academic Press, 1982, ISBN 0-12-597680-1, p. 4
[26] Tarski, Alfred; Givant, Steven (1987). A formalization of set theory without variables. American Mathematical Society. p.
3. ISBN 0-8218-1041-3.
42 CHAPTER 11. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
11.10 References
M. Kilp, U. Knauer, A.V. Mikhalev, Monoids, Acts and Categories: with Applications to Wreath Products and
Graphs, De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics vol. 29, Walter de Gruyter, 2000, ISBN 3-11-015248-7.
Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.
Cointerpretability
In mathematical logic, cointerpretability is a binary relation on formal theories: a formal theory T is cointerpretable
in another such theory S, when the language of S can be translated into the language of T in such a way that S proves
every formula whose translation is a theorem of T. The translation here is required to preserve the logical structure
of formulas.
This concept, in a sense dual to interpretability, was introduced by Japaridze (1993), who also proved that, for theories
of Peano arithmetic and any stronger theories with eective axiomatizations, cointerpretability is equivalent to 1
-conservativity.
interpretability logic.
Tolerance (in logic)
12.2 References
Japaridze (Dzhaparidze), Giorgi (Giorgie) (1993), A generalized notion of weak interpretability and the corre-
sponding modal logic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 61 (1-2): 113160, MR 1218658, doi:10.1016/0168-
0072(93)90201-N.
Japaridze, Giorgi; de Jongh, Dick (1998), The logic of provability, in Buss, Samuel R., Handbook of Proof
Theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 137, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 475546,
MR 1640331, doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(98)80022-0.
43
Chapter 13
Comparability
In mathematics, any two elements x and y of a set P that is partially ordered by a binary relation are comparable
when either x y or y x. If it is not the case that x and y are comparable, then they are called incomparable.
A totally ordered set is exactly a partially ordered set in which every pair of elements is comparable.
It follows immediately from the denitions of comparability and incomparability that both relations are symmetric,
that is x is comparable to y if and only if y is comparable to x, and likewise for incomparability.
13.1 Notation
<
Comparability is denoted by the symbol = , and incomparability by the symbol .[1] Thus, for any pair of elements x
>
and y of a partially ordered set, exactly one of
<
x=y and
>
is true.
The comparability graph of a partially ordered set P has as vertices the elements of P and has as edges precisely those
<
pairs {x, y} of elements for which x=y .[2]
>
13.3 Classication
When classifying mathematical objects (e.g., topological spaces), two criteria are said to be comparable when the
objects that obey one criterion constitute a subset of the objects that obey the other, which is to say when they are
comparable under the partial order . For example, the T1 and T2 criteria are comparable, while the T1 and sobriety
criteria are not.
44
13.4. SEE ALSO 45
13.5 References
PlanetMath: partial order. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
[1] Trotter, William T. (1992), Combinatorics and Partially Ordered Sets:Dimension Theory, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, p. 3
[2] Gilmore, P. C.; Homan, A. J. (1964), A characterization of comparability graphs and of interval graphs, Canadian
Journal of Mathematics, 16: 539548, doi:10.4153/CJM-1964-055-5.
Chapter 14
Composition of relations
In mathematics, the composition of binary relations is a concept of forming a new relation S R from two given
relations R and S, having as its best-known special case the composition of functions.
14.1 Denition
If R X Y and S Y Z are two binary relations, then their composition S R is the relation
In other words, S R X Z is dened by the rule that says (x, z) S R if and only if there is an element
y Y such that x R y S z (i.e. (x, y) R and (y, z) S ).
In particular elds, authors might denote by R S what is dened here to be S R. The convention chosen here is
such that function composition (with the usual notation) is obtained as a special case, when R and S are functional
relations. Some authors[1] prefer to write l and r explicitly when necessary, depending whether the left or the right
relation is the rst one applied.
A further variation encountered in computer science is the Z notation: is used to denote the traditional (right)
composition, but ; (a fat open semicolon with Unicode code point U+2A3E) denotes left composition.[2][3] This use
of semicolon coincides with the notation for function composition used (mostly by computer scientists) in Category
theory,[4] as well as the notation for dynamic conjunction within linguistic dynamic semantics.[5] The semicolon
notation (with this semantic) was introduced by Ernst Schrder in 1895.[6]
The binary relations R X Y are sometimes regarded as the morphisms R : X Y in a category Rel which
has the sets as objects. In Rel, composition of morphisms is exactly composition of relations as dened above. The
category Set of sets is a subcategory of Rel that has the same objects but fewer morphisms. A generalization of this
is found in the theory of allegories.
14.2 Properties
Composition of relations is associative.
The inverse relation of S R is (S R)1 = R1 S 1 . This property makes the set of all binary relations on a set a
semigroup with involution.
The composition of (partial) functions (i.e. functional relations) is again a (partial) function.
If R and S are injective, then S R is injective, which conversely implies only the injectivity of R.
If R and S are surjective, then S R is surjective, which conversely implies only the surjectivity of S.
The set of binary relations on a set X (i.e. relations from X to X) together with (left or right) relation composition
forms a monoid with zero, where the identity map on X is the neutral element, and the empty set is the zero element.
46
14.3. JOIN: ANOTHER FORM OF COMPOSITION 47
Other forms of composition of relations, which apply to general n-place relations instead of binary relations, are
found in the join operation of relational algebra. The usual composition of two binary relations as dened here can
be obtained by taking their join, leading to a ternary relation, followed by a projection that removes the middle
component.
Demonic composition
Function composition
Join (SQL)
Logical matrix
14.6 Notes
[1] Kilp, Knauer & Mikhalev, p. 7
[3] http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2a3e/index.htm
[4] http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/Barr-Wells-ctcs.pdf, p. 6
[5] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dynamic-semantics/#EncDynTypLog
[6] Paul Taylor (1999). Practical Foundations of Mathematics. Cambridge University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-521-63107-5.
A free HTML version of the book is available at http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~{}pt/Practical_Foundations/
14.7 References
M. Kilp, U. Knauer, A.V. Mikhalev, Monoids, Acts and Categories with Applications to Wreath Products and
Graphs, De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics vol. 29, Walter de Gruyter, 2000, ISBN 3-11-015248-7.
Chapter 15
Congruence relation
In abstract algebra, a congruence relation (or simply congruence) is an equivalence relation on an algebraic structure
(such as a group, ring, or vector space) that is compatible with the structure.[1] Every congruence relation has a corre-
sponding quotient structure, whose elements are the equivalence classes (or congruence classes) for the relation.[2]
The prototypical example of a congruence relation is congruence modulo n on the set of integers. For a given positive
integer n , two integers a and b are called congruent modulo n , written
ab (mod n)
if a b is divisible by n (or equivalently if a and b have the same remainder when divided by n ).
for example, 37 and 57 are congruent modulo 10 ,
37 57 (mod 10)
since 37 57 = 20 is a multiple of 10, or equivalently since both 37 and 57 have a remainder of 7 when divided
by 10 .
Congruence modulo n (for a xed n ) is compatible with both addition and multiplication on the integers. That is,
if
then
The corresponding addition and multiplication of equivalence classes is known as modular arithmetic. From the point
of view of abstract algebra, congruence modulo n is a congruence relation on the ring of integers, and arithmetic
modulo n occurs on the corresponding quotient ring.
48
15.2. DEFINITION 49
15.2 Denition
The denition of a congruence depends on the type of algebraic structure under consideration. Particular denitions of
congruence can be made for groups, rings, vector spaces, modules, semigroups, lattices, and so forth. The common
theme is that a congruence is an equivalence relation on an algebraic object that is compatible with the algebraic
structure, in the sense that the operations are well-dened on the equivalence classes.
For example, a group is an algebraic object consisting of a set together with a single binary operation, satisfying
certain axioms. If G is a group with operation , a congruence relation on G is an equivalence relation on the
elements of G satisfying
g1 g2 and h1 h2 = g1 h1 g2 h2
for all g1 , g2 , h1 , h2 G . For a congruence on a group, the equivalence class containing the identity element
is always a normal subgroup, and the other equivalence classes are the cosets of this subgroup. Together, these
equivalence classes are the elements of a quotient group.
When an algebraic structure includes more than one operation, congruence relations are required to be compatible
with each operation. For example, a ring possesses both addition and multiplication, and a congruence relation on a
ring must satisfy
r1 + s1 r2 + s2 and r1 s1 r2 s2
whenever r1 r2 and s1 s2 . For a congruence on a ring, the equivalence class containing 0 is always a two-sided
ideal, and the two operations on the set of equivalence classes dene the corresponding quotient ring.
The general notion of a congruence relation can be given a formal denition in the context of universal algebra, a
eld which studies ideas common to all algebraic structures. In this setting, a congruence relation is an equivalence
relation on an algebraic structure that satises
for every n-ary operation , and all elements a1 , . . . ,an ,a1 , . . . ,an for each i.
is a congruence relation. By the rst isomorphism theorem, the image of A under f is a substructure of B isomorphic
to the quotient of A by this congruence.
4. Given any elements a, a' , b, and b' of G, if a ~ a' and b ~ b' , then a * b ~ a' * b' ;
5. Given any elements a and a' of G, if a ~ a' , then a1 ~ a' 1 (this can actually be proven from the other four,
so is strictly redundant).
15.7 Notes
[1] Hungerford, Thomas W.. Algebra. Springer-Verlag, 1974, p. 27
15.8 References
Horn and Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1985. ISBN 0-521-38632-2. (Section 4.5
discusses congruency of matrices.)
Chapter 16
Contour set
X2
and an element x of X
xX
The upper contour set of x is the set of all y that are related to x :
{y y x}
The lower contour set of x is the set of all y such that x is related to them:
{y x y}
The strict upper contour set of x is the set of all y that are related to x without x being in this way related to any
of them:
{y (y x) (x y)}
The strict lower contour set of x is the set of all y such that x is related to them without any of them being in this
way related to x :
{y (x y) (y x)}
51
52 CHAPTER 16. CONTOUR SET
The formal expressions of the last two may be simplied if we have dened
= {(a, b) (a b) (b a)}
so that a is related to b but b is not related to a , in which case the strict upper contour set of x is
{y y x}
{y x y}
(a b) [f (a) f (b)]
16.2 Examples
16.2.1 Arithmetic
Consider a real number x , and the relation . Then
the upper contour set of x would be the set of numbers that were greater than or equal to x ,
the strict upper contour set of x would be the set of numbers that were greater than x ,
the lower contour set of x would be the set of numbers that were less than or equal to x , and
the strict lower contour set of x would be the set of numbers that were less than x .
(a b) [f (a) f (b)]
Then
the upper contour set of x would be the set of all y such that f (y) f (x) ,
the strict upper contour set of x would be the set of all y such that f (y) > f (x) ,
the lower contour set of x would be the set of all y such that f (x) f (y) , and
the strict lower contour set of x would be the set of all y such that f (x) > f (y) .
(a b) [f (a) f (b)]
16.3. COMPLEMENTARITY 53
(a b) [f (a) f (b)]
Note that the arguments to f () might be vectors, and that the notation used might instead be
16.2.2 Economic
In economics, the set X could be interpreted as a set of goods and services or of possible outcomes, the relation
as strict preference, and the relationship as weak preference. Then
the upper contour set, or better set,[1] of x would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were at
least as desired as x ,
the strict upper contour set of x would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were more desired
than x ,
the lower contour set, or worse set,[1] of x would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were no
more desired than x , and
the strict lower contour set of x would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were less desired than
x.
the upper contour set of x would be the set of all y such that u(y) u(x) ,
the strict upper contour set of x would be the set of all y such that u(y) > u(x) ,
the lower contour set of x would be the set of all y such that u(x) u(y) , and
the strict lower contour set of x would be the set of all y such that u(x) > u(y) .
16.3 Complementarity
On the assumption that is a total ordering of X , the complement of the upper contour set is the strict lower contour
set.
X 2 \ {y y x} = {y x y}
X 2 \ {y x y} = {y y x}
and the complement of the strict upper contour set is the lower contour set.
X 2 \ {y y x} = {y x y}
X 2 \ {y x y} = {y y x}
54 CHAPTER 16. CONTOUR SET
Hypograph
16.5 References
[1] Robert P. Gilles (1996). Economic Exchange and Social Organization: The Edgeworthian Foundations of General Equilib-
rium Theory. Springer. p. 35.
16.6 Bibliography
Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, Microeconomic Theory (LCC HB172.M6247
1995), p43. ISBN 0-19-507340-1 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-510268-1 (paper)
Chapter 17
Covering relation
{x,y,z}
The Hasse diagram of the power set of three elements, partially ordered by inclusion.
holds between comparable elements that are immediate neighbours. The covering relation is commonly used to
graphically express the partial order by means of the Hasse diagram.
17.1 Denition
Let X be a set with a partial order . As usual, let < be the relation on X such that x < y if and only if x y and
x = y .
55
56 CHAPTER 17. COVERING RELATION
17.2 Examples
In a nite linearly ordered set {1, 2, ..., n}, i + 1 covers i for all i between 1 and n 1 (and there are no other
covering relations).
In the Boolean algebra of the power set of a set S, a subset B of S covers a subset A of S if and only if B is
obtained from A by adding one element not in A.
In Youngs lattice, formed by the partitions of all nonnegative integers, a partition covers a partition if and
only if the Young diagram of is obtained from the Young diagram of by adding an extra cell.
The Hasse diagram depicting the covering relation of a Tamari lattice is the skeleton of an associahedron.
The covering relation of any nite distributive lattice forms a median graph.
On the real numbers with the usual total order , the cover set is empty: no number covers another.
17.3 Properties
If a partially ordered set is nite, its covering relation is the transitive reduction of the partial order relation.
Such partially ordered sets are therefore completely described by their Hasse diagrams. On the other hand, in
a dense order, such as the rational numbers with the standard order, no element covers another.
17.4 References
Knuth, Donald E. (2006), The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 4, Fascicle 4, Addison-Wesley, ISBN
0-321-33570-8.
Stanley, Richard P. (1997), Enumerative Combinatorics, 1 (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-
521-55309-1.
Davey, B.A. (2002), Introduction to Lattices and Order, 1 (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-
0-521-78451-1.
Chapter 18
Demonic composition
In mathematics, demonic composition is an operation on binary relations that is somewhat comparable to ordinary
composition of relations but is robust to renement of the relations into (partial) functions or injective relations.
Unlike ordinary composition of relations, demonic composition is not associative.
18.1 Denition
Suppose R is a binary relation between X and Y and S is a relation between Y and Z. Their right demonic composition
R ; S is a relation between X and Z. Its graph is dened as
{(x, z) | x (S R) z y Y (x R y y S z)}.
{(x, z) | x (S R) z y Y (y S z x R y)}.
18.2 References
Backhouse, Roland; van der Woude, Jaap (1993), Demonic operators and monotype factors, Mathematical
Structures in Computer Science, 3 (4): 417433, MR 1249420, doi:10.1017/S096012950000030X.
57
Chapter 19
Dense order
In mathematics, a partial order or total order < on a set X is said to be dense if, for all x and y in X for which x < y,
there is a z in X such that x < z < y.
19.1 Example
The rational numbers with the ordinary ordering are a densely ordered set in this sense, as are the real numbers. On
the other hand, the ordinary ordering on the integers is not dense.
19.2 Uniqueness
Georg Cantor proved that every two densely totally ordered countable sets without lower or upper bounds are order-
isomorphic.[1] In particular, there exists an order-isomorphism between the rational numbers and other densely or-
dered countable sets including the dyadic rationals and the algebraic numbers. The proof of this result uses the
back-and-forth method.[2]
Minkowskis question mark function can be used to determine the order isomorphisms between the quadratic algebraic
numbers and the rational numbers, and between the rationals and the dyadic rationals.
19.3 Generalizations
Any binary relation R is said to be dense if, for all R-related x and y, there is a z such that x and z and also z and y are
R-related. Formally:
Every reexive relation is dense. A strict partial order < is a dense order i < is a dense relation. A dense relation
that is also transitive is said to be idempotent.
Dense-in-itself
Kripke semantics
58
19.5. REFERENCES 59
19.5 References
[1] Roitman, Judith (1990), Theorem 27, p. 123, Introduction to Modern Set Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics, 8,
John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9780471635192.
[2] Dasgupta, Abhijit (2013), Set Theory: With an Introduction to Real Point Sets, Springer-Verlag, p. 161, ISBN 9781461488545.
Dependence relation
Not to be confused with Dependency relation, which is a binary relation that is symmetric and reexive.
In mathematics, a dependence relation is a binary relation which generalizes the relation of linear dependence.
Let X be a set. A (binary) relation between an element a of X and a subset S of X is called a dependence relation,
written a S , if it satises the following properties:
if a S , then a S ;
if a S , then there is a nite subset S0 of S , such that a S0 ;
20.1 Examples
Let V be a vector space over a eld F. The relation , dened by S if is in the subspace spanned by S ,
is a dependence relation. This is equivalent to the denition of linear dependence.
Let K be a eld extension of F. Dene by S if is algebraic over F (S). Then is a dependence relation.
This is equivalent to the denition of algebraic dependence.
This article incorporates material from Dependence relation on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the Creative Com-
mons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
60
Chapter 21
Dependency relation
In mathematics and computer science, a dependency relation is a binary relation that is nite, symmetric, and
reexive; i.e. a nite tolerance relation. That is, it is a nite set of ordered pairs D , such that
In general, dependency relations are not transitive; thus, they generalize the notion of an equivalence relation by
discarding transitivity.
Let denote the alphabet of all the letters of D . Then the independency induced by D is the binary relation I
I =\D
That is, the independency is the set of all ordered pairs that are not in D . The independency is symmetric and
irreexive.
The pairs (, D) and (, I) , or the triple (, D, I) (with I induced by D ) are sometimes called the concurrent
alphabet or the reliance alphabet.
The pairs of letters in an independency relation induce an equivalence relation on the free monoid of all possible
strings of nite length. The elements of the equivalence classes induced by the independency are called traces, and
are studied in trace theory.
21.1 Examples
Consider the alphabet = {a, b, c} . A possible dependency relation is
= {(a, b), (b, a), (a, c), (c, a), (a, a), (b, b), (c, c)}
The corresponding independency is
61
62 CHAPTER 21. DEPENDENCY RELATION
A
a
c
b
Chapter 22
Homogeneous relation
Relation (mathematics)" redirects here. For a more general notion of relation, see nitary relation. For a more
combinatorial viewpoint, see theory of relations. For other uses, see Relation (disambiguation).
In mathematics, a binary relation on a set A is a collection of ordered pairs of elements of A. In other words, it is a
subset of the Cartesian product A2 = A A. More generally, a binary relation between two sets A and B is a subset
of A B. The terms correspondence, dyadic relation and 2-place relation are synonyms for binary relation.
An example is the "divides" relation between the set of prime numbers P and the set of integers Z, in which every
prime p is associated with every integer z that is a multiple of p (but with no integer that is not a multiple of p). In
this relation, for instance, the prime 2 is associated with numbers that include 4, 0, 6, 10, but not 1 or 9; and the
prime 3 is associated with numbers that include 0, 6, and 9, but not 4 or 13.
Binary relations are used in many branches of mathematics to model concepts like "is greater than", "is equal to", and
divides in arithmetic, "is congruent to" in geometry, is adjacent to in graph theory, is orthogonal to in linear
algebra and many more. The concept of function is dened as a special kind of binary relation. Binary relations are
also heavily used in computer science.
A binary relation is the special case n = 2 of an n-ary relation R A1 An, that is, a set of n-tuples where the
jth component of each n-tuple is taken from the jth domain Aj of the relation. An example for a ternary relation on
ZZZ is " ... lies between ... and ..., containing e.g. the triples (5,2,8), (5,8,2), and (4,9,7).
In some systems of axiomatic set theory, relations are extended to classes, which are generalizations of sets. This
extension is needed for, among other things, modeling the concepts of is an element of or is a subset of in set
theory, without running into logical inconsistencies such as Russells paradox.
A binary relation R between arbitrary sets (or classes) X (the set of departure) and Y (the set of destination or
codomain) is specied by its graph G, which is a subset of the Cartesian product X Y. The binary relation R itself
is usually identied with its graph G, but some authors dene it as an ordered triple (X, Y, G), which is otherwise
referred to as a correspondence.[1]
The statement (x, y) G is read "x is R-related to y", and is denoted by xRy or R(x, y). The latter notation corresponds
to viewing R as the characteristic function of the subset G of X Y, i.e. R(x, y) equals to 1 (true), if (x, y) G, and
0 (false) otherwise.
The order of the elements in each pair of G is important: if a b, then aRb and bRa can be true or false, independently
of each other. Resuming the above example, the prime 3 divides the integer 9, but 9 doesn't divide 3.
The domain of R is the set of all x such that xRy for at least one y. The range of R is the set of all y such that xRy
for at least one x. The eld of R is the union of its domain and its range.[2][3][4]
63
64 CHAPTER 22. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
22.1.2 Example
Example: Suppose there are four objects {ball, car, doll, gun} and four persons {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}. Suppose
that John owns the ball, Mary owns the doll, and Venus owns the car. Nobody owns the gun and Ian owns nothing.
Then the binary relation is owned by is given as
R = ({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)}).
Thus the rst element of R is the set of objects, the second is the set of persons, and the last element is a set of ordered
pairs of the form (object, owner).
The pair (ball, John), denoted by RJ means that the ball is owned by John.
Two dierent relations could have the same graph. For example: the relation
({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)})
is dierent from the previous one as everyone is an owner. But the graphs of the two relations are the same.
Nevertheless, R is usually identied or even dened as G(R) and an ordered pair (x, y) G(R)" is usually denoted as
"(x, y) R".[5]
injective (also called left-unique[8] ): for all x and z in X and y in Y it holds that if xRy and zRy then x = z. For
example, the green relation in the diagram is injective, but the red relation is not, as it relates e.g. both x = 5
and z = +5 to y = 25.
functional (also called univalent[9] or right-unique[8] or right-denite[10] ): for all x in X, and y and z in Y
it holds that if xRy and xRz then y = z; such a binary relation is called a partial function. Both relations in
the picture are functional. An example for a non-functional relation can be obtained by rotating the red graph
clockwise by 90 degrees, i.e. by considering the relation x=y2 which relates e.g. x=25 to both y=5 and z=+5.
22.2. SPECIAL TYPES OF BINARY RELATIONS 65
one-to-one (also written 1-to-1): injective and functional. The green relation is one-to-one, but the red is not.
Totality properties (only denable if the sets of departure X resp. destination Y are specied; not to be confused with
a total relation):
left-total:[8] for all x in X there exists a y in Y such that xRy. For example, R is left-total when it is a function
or a multivalued function. Note that this property, although sometimes also referred to as total, is dierent
from the denition of total in the next section. Both relations in the picture are left-total. The relation x=y2 ,
obtained from the above rotation, is not left-total, as it doesn't relate, e.g., x = 14 to any real number y.
surjective (also called right-total[8] or onto): for all y in Y there exists an x in X such that xRy. The green
relation is surjective, but the red relation is not, as it doesn't relate any real number x to e.g. y = 14.
66 CHAPTER 22. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
A function: a relation that is functional and left-total. Both the green and the red relation are functions.
A bijection: a surjective one-to-one or surjective injective function is said to be bijective, also known as
one-to-one correspondence.[11] The green relation is bijective, but the red is not.
22.2.1 Difunctional
Less commonly encountered is the notion of difunctional (or regular) relation, dened as a relation R such that
R=RR1 R.[12]
To understand this notion better, it helps to consider a relation as mapping every element xX to a set xR = { yY
| xRy }.[12] This set is sometimes called the successor neighborhood of x in R; one can dene the predecessor
neighborhood analogously.[13] Synonymous terms for these notions are afterset and respectively foreset.[6]
A difunctional relation can then be equivalently characterized as a relation R such that wherever x1 R and x2 R have a
non-empty intersection, then these two sets coincide; formally x1 R x2 R implies x1 R = x2 R.[12]
As examples, any function or any functional (right-unique) relation is difunctional; the converse doesn't hold. If one
considers a relation R from set to itself (X = Y), then if R is both transitive and symmetric (i.e. a partial equivalence
relation), then it is also difunctional.[14] The converse of this latter statement also doesn't hold.
A characterization of difunctional relations, which also explains their name, is to consider two functions f: A C
and g: B C and then dene the following set which generalizes the kernel of a single function as joint kernel: ker(f,
g) = { (a, b) A B | f(a) = g(b) }. Every difunctional relation R A B arises as the joint kernel of two functions
f: A C and g: B C for some set C.[15]
In automata theory, the term rectangular relation has also been used to denote a difunctional relation. This ter-
minology is justied by the fact that when represented as a boolean matrix, the columns and rows of a difunctional
relation can be arranged in such a way as to present rectangular blocks of true on the (asymmetric) main diagonal.[16]
Other authors however use the term rectangular to denote any heterogeneous relation whatsoever.[7]
reexive: for all x in X it holds that xRx. For example, greater than or equal to () is a reexive relation but
greater than (>) is not.
irreexive (or strict): for all x in X it holds that not xRx. For example, > is an irreexive relation, but is not.
coreexive relation: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then x = y.[19] An example of a coreexive relation
is the relation on integers in which each odd number is related to itself and there are no other relations. The
equality relation is the only example of a both reexive and coreexive relation, and any coreexive relation is
a subset of the identity relation.
The previous 3 alternatives are far from being exhaustive; e.g. the red relation y=x2 from the
above picture is neither irreexive, nor coreexive, nor reexive, since it contains the pair
(0,0), and (2,4), but not (2,2), respectively.
22.4. OPERATIONS ON BINARY RELATIONS 67
symmetric: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then yRx. Is a blood relative of is a symmetric relation,
because x is a blood relative of y if and only if y is a blood relative of x.
antisymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy and yRx then x = y. For example, is anti-symmetric; so is >, but
vacuously (the condition in the denition is always false).[20]
asymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy then not yRx. A relation is asymmetric if and only if it is both
anti-symmetric and irreexive.[21] For example, > is asymmetric, but is not.
transitive: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and yRz then xRz. For example, is ancestor of is transitive,
while is parent of is not. A transitive relation is irreexive if and only if it is asymmetric.[22]
total: for all x and y in X it holds that xRy or yRx (or both). This denition for total is dierent from left total
in the previous section. For example, is a total relation.
trichotomous: for all x and y in X exactly one of xRy, yRx or x = y holds. For example, > is a trichotomous
relation, while the relation divides on natural numbers is not.[23]
Right Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and xRz, then yRz.
Left Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if yRx and zRx, then yRz.
Euclidean: A Euclidean relation is both left and right Euclidean. Equality is a Euclidean relation because if
x=y and x=z, then y=z.
serial: for all x in X, there exists y in X such that xRy. "Is greater than" is a serial relation on the integers. But
it is not a serial relation on the positive integers, because there is no y in the positive integers such that 1>y.[24]
However, "is less than" is a serial relation on the positive integers, the rational numbers and the real numbers.
Every reexive relation is serial: for a given x, choose y=x. A serial relation can be equivalently characterized
as every element having a non-empty successor neighborhood (see the previous section for the denition of this
notion). Similarly an inverse serial relation is a relation in which every element has non-empty predecessor
neighborhood.[13]
set-like (or local): for every x in X, the class of all y such that yRx is a set. (This makes sense only if relations
on proper classes are allowed.) The usual ordering < on the class of ordinal numbers is set-like, while its inverse
> is not.
A relation that is reexive, symmetric, and transitive is called an equivalence relation. A relation that is symmetric,
transitive, and serial is also reexive. A relation that is only symmetric and transitive (without necessarily being
reexive) is called a partial equivalence relation.
A relation that is reexive, antisymmetric, and transitive is called a partial order. A partial order that is total is called
a total order, simple order, linear order, or a chain.[25] A linear order where every nonempty subset has a least element
is called a well-order.
Union: R S X Y, dened as R S = { (x, y) | (x, y) R or (x, y) S }. For example, is the union of >
and =.
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, and S is a binary relation over Y and Z, then the following is a binary relation
over X and Z: (see main article composition of relations)
68 CHAPTER 22. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
Composition: S R, also denoted R ; S (or R S), dened as S R = { (x, z) | there exists y Y, such that (x, y)
R and (y, z) S }. The order of R and S in the notation S R, used here agrees with the standard notational
order for composition of functions. For example, the composition is mother of is parent of yields is
maternal grandparent of, while the composition is parent of is mother of yields is grandmother of.
A relation R on sets X and Y is said to be contained in a relation S on X and Y if R is a subset of S, that is, if x R y
always implies x S y. In this case, if R and S disagree, R is also said to be smaller than S. For example, > is contained
in .
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following is a binary relation over Y and X:
Inverse or converse: R 1 , dened as R 1 = { (y, x) | (x, y) R }. A binary relation over a set is equal to its
inverse if and only if it is symmetric. See also duality (order theory). For example, is less than (<) is the
inverse of is greater than (>).
If R is a binary relation over X, then each of the following is a binary relation over X:
Reexive closure: R = , dened as R = = { (x, x) | x X } R or the smallest reexive relation over X containing
R. This can be proven to be equal to the intersection of all reexive relations containing R.
Reexive reduction: R , dened as R
= R \ { (x, x) | x X } or the largest irreexive relation over X
contained in R.
Transitive closure: R + , dened as the smallest transitive relation over X containing R. This can be seen to be
equal to the intersection of all transitive relations containing R.
Reexive transitive closure: R *, dened as R * = (R + ) = , the smallest preorder containing R.
Reexive transitive symmetric closure: R , dened as the smallest equivalence relation over X containing
R.
22.4.1 Complement
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following too:
The complement S is dened as x S y if not x R y. For example, on real numbers, is the complement of >.
22.4.2 Restriction
The restriction of a binary relation on a set X to a subset S is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x and
y are in S.
If a relation is reexive, irreexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, asymmetric, transitive, total, trichotomous, a partial
order, total order, strict weak order, total preorder (weak order), or an equivalence relation, its restrictions are too.
However, the transitive closure of a restriction is a subset of the restriction of the transitive closure, i.e., in general
not equal. For example, restricting the relation "x is parent of y" to females yields the relation "x is mother of
the woman y"; its transitive closure doesn't relate a woman with her paternal grandmother. On the other hand, the
22.5. SETS VERSUS CLASSES 69
transitive closure of is parent of is is ancestor of"; its restriction to females does relate a woman with her paternal
grandmother.
Also, the various concepts of completeness (not to be confused with being total) do not carry over to restrictions.
For example, on the set of real numbers a property of the relation "" is that every non-empty subset S of R with an
upper bound in R has a least upper bound (also called supremum) in R. However, for a set of rational numbers this
supremum is not necessarily rational, so the same property does not hold on the restriction of the relation "" to the
set of rational numbers.
The left-restriction (right-restriction, respectively) of a binary relation between X and Y to a subset S of its domain
(codomain) is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x (y) is an element of S.
the number of equivalence relations is the number of partitions, which is the Bell number.
The binary relations can be grouped into pairs (relation, complement), except that for n = 0 the relation is its own
complement. The non-symmetric ones can be grouped into quadruples (relation, complement, inverse, inverse com-
plement).
greater than
greater than or equal to
less than
less than or equal to
divides (evenly)
is a subset of
equivalence relations:
equality
is parallel to (for ane spaces)
is in bijection with
isomorphy
independency relation, a symmetric, irreexive relation which is the complement of some dependency relation.
Hasse diagram
Incidence structure
Logic of relatives
Order theory
Triadic relation
22.9 Notes
[1] Encyclopedic dictionary of Mathematics. MIT. 2000. pp. 13301331. ISBN 0-262-59020-4.
[2] Suppes, Patrick (1972) [originally published by D. van Nostrand Company in 1960]. Axiomatic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN
0-486-61630-4.
[3] Smullyan, Raymond M.; Fitting, Melvin (2010) [revised and corrected republication of the work originally published in
1996 by Oxford University Press, New York]. Set Theory and the Continuum Problem. Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-47484-7.
[4] Levy, Azriel (2002) [republication of the work published by Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York in 1979].
Basic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN 0-486-42079-5.
[5] Megill, Norman (5 August 1993). df-br (Metamath Proof Explorer)". Retrieved 18 November 2016.
22.9. NOTES 71
[6] Christodoulos A. Floudas; Panos M. Pardalos (2008). Encyclopedia of Optimization (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business
Media. pp. 299300. ISBN 978-0-387-74758-3.
[7] Michael Winter (2007). Goguen Categories: A Categorical Approach to L-fuzzy Relations. Springer. pp. xxi. ISBN
978-1-4020-6164-6.
[8] Kilp, Knauer and Mikhalev: p. 3. The same four denitions appear in the following:
Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook.
Springer Science & Business Media. p. 506. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
Eike Best (1996). Semantics of Sequential and Parallel Programs. Prentice Hall. pp. 1921. ISBN 978-0-13-
460643-9.
Robert-Christoph Riemann (1999). Modelling of Concurrent Systems: Structural and Semantical Methods in the High
Level Petri Net Calculus. Herbert Utz Verlag. pp. 2122. ISBN 978-3-89675-629-9.
[9] Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7, Chapt. 5
[10] Ms, Stephan (2007), Reasoning on Spatial Semantic Integrity Constraints, Spatial Information Theory: 8th International
Conference, COSIT 2007, Melbourne, Australia, September 1923, 2007, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
4736, Springer, pp. 285302, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74788-8_18
[11] Note that the use of correspondence here is narrower than as general synonym for binary relation.
[12] Chris Brink; Wolfram Kahl; Gunther Schmidt (1997). Relational Methods in Computer Science. Springer Science &
Business Media. p. 200. ISBN 978-3-211-82971-4.
[13] Yao, Y. (2004). Semantics of Fuzzy Sets in Rough Set Theory. Transactions on Rough Sets II. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. 3135. p. 309. ISBN 978-3-540-23990-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27778-1_15.
[14] William Craig (2006). Semigroups Underlying First-order Logic. American Mathematical Soc. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-8218-
6588-0.
[15] Gumm, H. P.; Zarrad, M. (2014). Coalgebraic Simulations and Congruences. Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8446. p. 118. ISBN 978-3-662-44123-7. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44124-4_7.
[16] Julius Richard Bchi (1989). Finite Automata, Their Algebras and Grammars: Towards a Theory of Formal Expressions.
Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 3537. ISBN 978-1-4613-8853-1.
[17] M. E. Mller (2012). Relational Knowledge Discovery. Cambridge University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-521-19021-3.
[18] Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook. Springer
Science & Business Media. p. 496. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
[19] Fonseca de Oliveira, J. N., & Pereira Cunha Rodrigues, C. D. J. (2004). Transposing Relations: From Maybe Functions
to Hash Tables. In Mathematics of Program Construction (p. 337).
[20] Smith, Douglas; Eggen, Maurice; St. Andre, Richard (2006), A Transition to Advanced Mathematics (6th ed.), Brooks/Cole,
p. 160, ISBN 0-534-39900-2
[21] Nievergelt, Yves (2002), Foundations of Logic and Mathematics: Applications to Computer Science and Cryptography,
Springer-Verlag, p. 158.
[22] Flaka, V.; Jeek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF). Prague: School
of Mathematics Physics Charles University. p. 1. Lemma 1.1 (iv). This source refers to asymmetric relations as strictly
antisymmetric.
[24] Yao, Y.Y.; Wong, S.K.M. (1995). Generalization of rough sets using relationships between attribute values (PDF).
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Joint Conference on Information Sciences: 3033..
[25] Joseph G. Rosenstein, Linear orderings, Academic Press, 1982, ISBN 0-12-597680-1, p. 4
[26] Tarski, Alfred; Givant, Steven (1987). A formalization of set theory without variables. American Mathematical Society. p.
3. ISBN 0-8218-1041-3.
72 CHAPTER 22. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
22.10 References
M. Kilp, U. Knauer, A.V. Mikhalev, Monoids, Acts and Categories: with Applications to Wreath Products and
Graphs, De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics vol. 29, Walter de Gruyter, 2000, ISBN 3-11-015248-7.
Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.
Directed set
In mathematics, a directed set (or a directed preorder or a ltered set) is a nonempty set A together with a reexive
and transitive binary relation (that is, a preorder), with the additional property that every pair of elements has an
upper bound.[1] In other words, for any a and b in A there must exist c in A with a c and b c.
The notion dened above is sometimes called an upward directed set. A downward directed set is dened
analogously,[2] meaning when every pair of elements is bounded below.[3] Some authors (and this article) assume
that a directed set is directed upward, unless otherwise stated. Beware that other authors call a set directed if and
only if it is directed both upward and downward.[4]
Directed sets are a generalization of nonempty totally ordered sets. That is, all totally ordered sets are directed sets
(contrast partially ordered sets, which need not be directed). Join semilattices (which are partially ordered sets) are
directed sets as well, but not conversely. Likewise, lattices are directed sets both upward and downward.
In topology, directed sets are used to dene nets, which generalize sequences and unite the various notions of limit
used in analysis. Directed sets also give rise to direct limits in abstract algebra and (more generally) category theory.
23.2 Examples
Examples of directed sets include:
The set of natural numbers N with the ordinary order is a directed set (and so is every totally ordered set).
Let D1 and D2 be directed sets. Then the Cartesian product set D1 D2 can be made into a directed set by
dening (n1 , n2 ) (m1 , m2 ) if and only if n1 m1 and n2 m2 . In analogy to the product order this is the
product direction on the Cartesian product.
It follows from previous example that the set N N of pairs of natural numbers can be made into a directed
set by dening (n0 , n1 ) (m0 , m1 ) if and only if n0 m0 and n1 m1 .
If x0 is a real number, we can turn the set R {x0 } into a directed set by writing a b if and only if
|a x0 | |b x0 |. We then say that the reals have been directed towards x0 . This is an example of a directed
set that is not ordered (neither totally nor partially).
A (trivial) example of a partially ordered set that is not directed is the set {a, b}, in which the only order
relations are a a and b b. A less trivial example is like the previous example of the reals directed towards
x0 " but in which the ordering rule only applies to pairs of elements on the same side of x0 .
73
74 CHAPTER 23. DIRECTED SET
If T is a topological space and x0 is a point in T, we turn the set of all neighbourhoods of x0 into a directed set
by writing U V if and only if U contains V.
In a poset P, every lower closure of an element, i.e. every subset of the form {a| a in P, a x} where x is a
xed element from P, is directed.
Witness
Directed sets are a more general concept than (join) semilattices: every join semilattice is a directed set, as the join
or least upper bound of two elements is the desired c. The converse does not hold however, witness the directed set
23.4. DIRECTED SUBSETS 75
{1000,0001,1101,1011,1111} ordered bitwise (e.g. 1000 1011 holds, but 0001 1000 does not, since in the last
bit 1 > 0), where {1000,0001} has three upper bounds but no least upper bound, cf. picture. (Also note that without
1111, the set is not directed.)
Centered set
Linked set
23.6 Notes
[1] Kelley, p. 65.
[2] Robert S. Borden (1988). A Course in Advanced Calculus. Courier Corporation. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-486-15038-3.
[3] Arlen Brown; Carl Pearcy (1995). An Introduction to Analysis. Springer. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-4612-0787-0.
[4] Siegfried Carl; Seppo Heikkil (2010). Fixed Point Theory in Ordered Sets and Applications: From Dierential and Integral
Equations to Game Theory. Springer. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4419-7585-0.
[5] Gierz, p. 2.
23.7 References
J. L. Kelley (1955), General Topology.
Gierz, Hofmann, Keimel, et al. (2003), Continuous Lattices and Domains, Cambridge University Press. ISBN
0-521-80338-1.
Chapter 24
Equality (mathematics)
In mathematics, equality is a relationship between two quantities or, more generally two mathematical expressions,
asserting that the quantities have the same value, or that the expressions represent the same mathematical object. The
equality between A and B is written A = B, and pronounced A equals B. The symbol "=" is called an "equals sign".
Thus there are three kinds of equality, which are formalized in dierent ways.
Two expressions evaluate to the same value, such as a number, vector, function or set.
These may be thought of as the logical, set-theoretic and algebraic concepts of equality respectively.
24.1 Etymology
The etymology of the word is from the Latin aequlis (equal, like, comparable, similar) from aequus (equal,
level, fair, just).
Given any x and y, x = y if and only if, given any predicate P, P(x) if and only if P(y).
In this law, "P(x) if and only if P(y)" can be weakened to "P(x) if P(y)"; the modied law is equivalent to the original.
Instead of considering Leibnizs law as a true statement that can be proven from the usual laws of logic (including
axioms about equality such as symmetry, reexivity and substitution), it can also be taken as the denition of equality.
The property of being an equivalence relation, as well as the properties given below, can then be proved: they become
theorems.
76
24.3. EQUALITY IN SET THEORY 77
For any quantities a and b and any expression F(x), if a = b, then F(a) = F(b) (if both sides make sense, i.e.
are well-formed).
In rst-order logic, this is a schema, since we can't quantify over expressions like F (which would be a functional
predicate).
Some specic examples of this are:
For any real numbers a, b, and c, if a = b and c is not zero, then a/c = b/c (here F(x) is x/c).
These three properties were originally included among the Peano axioms for natural numbers. Although the sym-
metric and transitive properties are often seen as fundamental, they can be proved if the substitution and reexive
properties are assumed instead.
Equality of sets is axiomatized in set theory in two dierent ways, depending on whether the axioms are based on a
rst-order language with or without equality.
Logic axiom: x = y z, (z x z y)
78 CHAPTER 24. EQUALITY (MATHEMATICS)
Logic axiom: x = y z, (x z y z)
Set theory axiom: (z, (z x z y)) x = y
Incorporating half of the work into the rst-order logic may be regarded as a mere matter of convenience, as noted
by Lvy.
The reason why we take up rst-order predicate calculus with equality is a matter of convenience; by
this we save the labor of dening equality and proving all its properties; this burden is now assumed by
the logic.[4]
24.4.1 Identities
Main article: Identity (mathematics)
When A and B may be viewed as functions of some variables, then A = B means that A and B dene the same function.
Such an equality of functions is sometimes called an identity. An example is (x + 1)2 = x2 + 2x + 1. Sometimes, but
not always, an identity is written with a triple bar: (x + 1)2 x2 + 2x + 1.
24.4.2 Equations
An equation is the problem of nding values of some variables, called unknowns, for which the specied equality is
true. Equation may also refer to an equality relation that is satised only for the values of the variables that one is
interested in. For example, x2 + y2 = 1 is the equation of the unit circle.
There is no standard notation that distinguishes an equation from an identity or other use of the equality relation: a
reader has to guess an appropriate interpretation from the semantics of expressions and the context. An identity is
asserted to be true for all values of variables in a given domain. An equation may sometimes mean an identity, but
more often it species a subset of the variable space to be the subset where the equation is true.
24.4.3 Congruences
Main articles: Congruence relation and Congruence (geometry)
In some cases, one may consider as equal two mathematical objects that are only equivalent for the properties that
are considered. This is, in particular the case in geometry, where two geometric shapes are said equal when one may
be moved to coincide with the other. The word congruence is also used for this kind of equality.
The binary relation "is approximately equal" between real numbers or other things, even if more precisely dened,
is not transitive (it may seem so at rst sight, but many small dierences can add up to something big). However,
equality almost everywhere is transitive.
Viewed as a relation, equality is the archetype of the more general concept of an equivalence relation on a set:
those binary relations that are reexive, symmetric, and transitive. The identity relation is an equivalence relation.
Conversely, let R be an equivalence relation, and let us denote by xR the equivalence class of x, consisting of all
elements z such that x R z. Then the relation x R y is equivalent with the equality xR = yR . It follows that equality is
the nest equivalence relation on any set S, in the sense that it is the relation that has the smallest equivalence classes
(every class is reduced to a single element).
In some contexts, equality is sharply distinguished from equivalence or isomorphism.[6] For example, one may distin-
guish fractions from rational numbers, the latter being equivalence classes of fractions: the fractions 1/2 and 2/4 are
distinct as fractions, as dierent strings of symbols, but they represent the same rational number, the same point
on a number line. This distinction gives rise to the notion of a quotient set.
Similarly, the sets
are not equal sets the rst consists of letters, while the second consists of numbers but they are both sets of three
elements, and thus isomorphic, meaning that there is a bijection between them, for example
A 7 1, B 7 2, C 7 3.
A 7 3, B 7 2, C 7 1,
and these sets cannot be identied without making such a choice any statement that identies them depends
on choice of identication. This distinction, between equality and isomorphism, is of fundamental importance in
category theory, and is one motivation for the development of category theory.
Inequality
Logical equality
Extensionality
24.7 Notes
[1] Rosser 2008, p. 163.
[2] Lvy 2002, pp. 13, 358. Mac Lane & Birkho 1999, p. 2. Mendelson 1964, p. 5.
[3] Kleene 2002, p. 189. Lvy 2002, p. 13. Shoeneld 2001, p. 239.
80 CHAPTER 24. EQUALITY (MATHEMATICS)
24.8 References
Kleene, Stephen Cole (2002) [1967]. Mathematical Logic. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications. ISBN
978-0-486-42533-7.
Lvy, Azriel (2002) [1979]. Basic set theory. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-
42079-0.
Mac Lane, Saunders; Birkho, Garrett (1999) [1967]. Algebra (Third ed.). Providence, Rhode Island: Amer-
ican Mathematical Society.
Mazur, Barry (12 June 2007), When is one thing equal to some other thing? (PDF)
Mendelson, Elliott (1964). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Rosser, John Barkley (2008) [1953]. Logic for mathematicians. Mineola, New York: Dover Publication. ISBN
978-0-486-46898-3.
Shoeneld, Joseph Robert (2001) [1967]. Mathematical Logic (2nd ed.). A K Peters. ISBN 978-1-56881-
135-2.
Equipollence (geometry)
In Euclidean geometry, equipollence is a binary relation between directed line segments. A line segment AB from
point A to point B has the opposite direction to line segment BA. Two directed line segments are equipollent when
they have the same length and direction.
The concept of equipollent line segments was advanced by Giusto Bellavitis in 1835. Subsequently the term vector
was adopted for a class of equipollent line segments. Bellavitiss use of the idea of a relation to compare dierent
but similar objects has become a common mathematical technique, particularly in the use of equivalence relations.
Bellavitis used a special notation for the equipollence of segments AB and CD:
AB CD.
The following passages, translated by Michael J. Crowe, show the anticipation that Bellavitis had of vector concepts:
Equipollences continue to hold when one substitutes for the lines in them, other lines which are respec-
tively equipollent to them, however they may be situated in space. From this it can be understood how
any number and any kind of lines may be summed, and that in whatever order these lines are taken, the
same equipollent-sum will be obtained...
In equipollences, just as in equations, a line may be transferred from one side to the other, provided that
the sign is changed...
The equipollence AB n.CD, where n stands for a positive number, indicates that AB is both parallel
to and has the same direction as CD, and that their lengths have the relation expressed by AB = n.CD.[1]
On a great circle of a sphere, two directed circular arcs are equipollent when they agree in direction and arc length.
An equivalence class of such arcs is associated with a quaternion versor
exp(ar) = cos a + r sin a, where a is arc length and r determines the plane of the great circle by
perpendicularity.
25.1 References
[1] Michael J. Crowe (1967) A History of Vector Analysis, Giusto Bellavitis and His Calculus of Equipollences, pp 524,
University of Notre Dame Press
81
82 CHAPTER 25. EQUIPOLLENCE (GEOMETRY)
Giusto Bellavitis (1858) Calcolo dei Quaternioni di W.R. Hamilton e sua Relazione col Metodo delle Equipol-
lenze, link from HathiTrust.
Charles-Ange Laisant (1887) Theorie et Applications des Equipollence, Gauthier-Villars, link from University
of Michigan Historical Math Collection.
Lena L. Severance (1930) The Theory of Equipollences; Method of Analytical Geometry of Sig. Bellavitis,
link from HathiTrust.
Equivalence class
This article is about equivalency in mathematics. For equivalency in music, see equivalence class (music).
In mathematics, when the elements of some set S have a notion of equivalence (formalized as an equivalence
Congruence is an example of an equivalence relation. The leftmost two triangles are congruent, while the third and fourth triangles
are not congruent to any other triangle shown here. Thus, the rst two triangles are in the same equivalence class, while the third
and fourth triangles are each in their own equivalence class.
relation) dened on them, then one may naturally split the set S into equivalence classes. These equivalence classes
are constructed so that elements a and b belong to the same equivalence class if and only if a and b are equivalent.
Formally, given a set S and an equivalence relation ~ on S, the equivalence class of an element a in S is the set
{x S | x a}
of elements which are equivalent to a. It may be proven from the dening properties of equivalence relations that
the equivalence classes form a partition of S. This partition the set of equivalence classes is sometimes called the
quotient set or the quotient space of S by ~ and is denoted by S / ~.
When the set S has some structure (such as a group operation or a topology) and the equivalence relation ~ is dened in
a manner suitably compatible with this structure, then the quotient set often inherits a similar structure from its parent
set. Examples include quotient spaces in linear algebra, quotient spaces in topology, quotient groups, homogeneous
spaces, quotient rings, quotient monoids, and quotient categories.
26.1 Examples
If X is the set of all cars, and ~ is the equivalence relation has the same color as, then one particular equivalence
class consists of all green cars. X/~ could be naturally identied with the set of all car colors.
83
84 CHAPTER 26. EQUIVALENCE CLASS
Let X be the set of all rectangles in a plane, and ~ the equivalence relation has the same area as. For each
positive real number A there will be an equivalence class of all the rectangles that have area A.[1]
Consider the modulo 2 equivalence relation on the set Z of integers: x ~ y if and only if their dierence x y
is an even number. This relation gives rise to exactly two equivalence classes: one class consisting of all even
numbers, and the other consisting of all odd numbers. Under this relation [7], [9], and [1] all represent the
same element of Z/~.[2]
Let X be the set of ordered pairs of integers (a,b) with b not zero, and dene an equivalence relation ~ on X
according to which (a,b) ~ (c,d) if and only if ad = bc. Then the equivalence class of the pair (a,b) can be
identied with the rational number a/b, and this equivalence relation and its equivalence classes can be used to
give a formal denition of the set of rational numbers.[3] The same construction can be generalized to the eld
of fractions of any integral domain.
If X consists of all the lines in, say the Euclidean plane, and L ~ M means that L and M are parallel lines, then
the set of lines that are parallel to each other form an equivalence class as long as a line is considered parallel
to itself. In this situation, each equivalence class determines a point at innity.
The equivalence class of an element a is denoted [a] and is dened as the set
[a] = {x X | a x}
of elements that are related to a by ~. An alternative notation [a]R can be used to denote the equivalence class of the
element a, specically with respect to the equivalence relation R. This is said to be the R-equivalence class of a.
The set of all equivalence classes in X with respect to an equivalence relation R is denoted as X/R and called X modulo
R (or the quotient set of X by R).[5] The surjective map x 7 [x] from X onto X/R, which maps each element to its
equivalence class, is called the canonical surjection or the canonical projection map.
When an element is chosen (often implicitly) in each equivalence class, this denes an injective map called a section. If
this section is denoted by s, one has [s(c)] = c for every equivalence class c. The element s(c) is called a representative
of c. Any element of a class may be chosen as a representative of the class, by choosing the section appropriately.
Sometimes, there is a section that is more natural than the other ones. In this case, the representatives are called
canonical representatives. For example, in modular arithmetic, consider the equivalence relation on the integers
dened by a ~ b if a b is a multiple of a given integer n, called the modulus. Each class contains a unique non-
negative integer smaller than n, and these integers are the canonical representatives. The class and its representative
are more or less identied, as is witnessed by the fact that the notation a mod n may denote either the class or its
canonical representative (which is the remainder of the division of a by n).
26.3 Properties
Every element x of X is a member of the equivalence class [x]. Every two equivalence classes [x] and [y] are either
equal or disjoint. Therefore, the set of all equivalence classes of X forms a partition of X: every element of X belongs
to one and only one equivalence class.[6] Conversely every partition of X comes from an equivalence relation in this
way, according to which x ~ y if and only if x and y belong to the same set of the partition.[7]
It follows from the properties of an equivalence relation that
26.4. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION 85
In other words, if ~ is an equivalence relation on a set X, and x and y are two elements of X, then these statements
are equivalent:
xy
[x] = [y]
[x] [y] = .
An undirected graph may be associated to any symmetric relation on a set X, where the vertices are the elements of
X, and two vertices s and t are joined if and only if s ~ t. Among these graphs are the graphs of equivalence relations;
they are characterized as the graphs such that the connected components are cliques.[8]
86 CHAPTER 26. EQUIVALENCE CLASS
26.5 Invariants
If ~ is an equivalence relation on X, and P(x) is a property of elements of X such that whenever x ~ y, P(x) is true if
P(y) is true, then the property P is said to be an invariant of ~, or well-dened under the relation ~.
A frequent particular case occurs when f is a function from X to another set Y; if f(x1 ) = f(x2 ) whenever x1 ~ x2 ,
then f is said to be a morphism for ~, a class invariant under ~, or simply invariant under ~. This occurs, e.g. in the
character theory of nite groups. Some authors use compatible with ~" or just respects ~" instead of invariant
under ~".
Any function f : X Y itself denes an equivalence relation on X according to which x1 ~ x2 if and only if f(x1 )
= f(x2 ). The equivalence class of x is the set of all elements in X which get mapped to f(x), i.e. the class [x] is the
inverse image of f(x). This equivalence relation is known as the kernel of f.
More generally, a function may map equivalent arguments (under an equivalence relation ~X on X) to equivalent
values (under an equivalence relation ~Y on Y). Such a function is known as a morphism from ~X to ~Y.
26.8 Notes
[1] Avelsgaard 1989, p. 127
26.9 References
Avelsgaard, Carol (1989), Foundations for Advanced Mathematics, Scott Foresman, ISBN 0-673-38152-8
Devlin, Keith (2004), Sets, Functions, and Logic: An Introduction to Abstract Mathematics (3rd ed.), Chapman
& Hall/ CRC Press, ISBN 978-1-58488-449-1
Maddox, Randall B. (2002), Mathematical Thinking and Writing, Harcourt/ Academic Press, ISBN 0-12-
464976-9
Morash, Ronald P. (1987), Bridge to Abstract Mathematics, Random House, ISBN 0-394-35429-X
Wolf, Robert S. (1998), Proof, Logic and Conjecture: A Mathematicians Toolbox, Freeman, ISBN 978-0-
7167-3050-7
Smith; Eggen; St.Andre (2006), A Transition to Advanced Mathematics (6th Ed.), Thomson (Brooks/Cole)
Schumacher, Carol (1996), Chapter Zero: Fundamental Notions of Abstract Mathematics, Addison-Wesley,
ISBN 0-201-82653-4
O'Leary (2003), The Structure of Proof: With Logic and Set Theory, Prentice-Hall
D'Angelo; West (2000), Mathematical Thinking: Problem Solving and Proofs, Prentice Hall
Cupillari, The Nuts and Bolts of Proofs, Wadsworth
Equivalence relation
This article is about the mathematical concept. For the patent doctrine, see Doctrine of equivalents.
In mathematics, an equivalence relation is a binary relation that is at the same time a reexive relation, a symmetric
relation and a transitive relation. As a consequence of these properties an equivalence relation provides a partition of
a set into equivalence classes.
27.1 Notation
Although various notations are used throughout the literature to denote that two elements a and b of a set are equivalent
with respect to an equivalence relation R, the most common are "a ~ b" and "a b", which are used when R is the
obvious relation being referenced, and variations of "a ~R b", "a R b", or "aRb" otherwise.
27.2 Denition
A given binary relation ~ on a set X is said to be an equivalence relation if and only if it is reexive, symmetric and
transitive. That is, for all a, b and c in X:
a ~ a. (Reexivity)
a ~ b if and only if b ~ a. (Symmetry)
if a ~ b and b ~ c then a ~ c. (Transitivity)
X together with the relation ~ is called a setoid. The equivalence class of a under ~, denoted [a] , is dened as
[a] = {b X | a b} .
27.3 Examples
88
27.4. CONNECTIONS TO OTHER RELATIONS 89
Has the same image under a function" on the elements of the domain of the function.
The relation has a common factor greater than 1 with between natural numbers greater than 1, is reexive
and symmetric, but not transitive. (Example: The natural numbers 2 and 6 have a common factor greater than
1, and 6 and 3 have a common factor greater than 1, but 2 and 3 do not have a common factor greater than 1).
The empty relation R on a non-empty set X (i.e. aRb is never true) is vacuously symmetric and transitive, but
not reexive. (If X is also empty then R is reexive.)
The relation is approximately equal to between real numbers, even if more precisely dened, is not an equiv-
alence relation, because although reexive and symmetric, it is not transitive, since multiple small changes can
accumulate to become a big change. However, if the approximation is dened asymptotically, for example by
saying that two functions f and g are approximately equal near some point if the limit of f g is 0 at that point,
then this denes an equivalence relation.
Equality is both an equivalence relation and a partial order. Equality is also the only relation on a set that
is reexive, symmetric and antisymmetric. In algebraic expressions, equal variables may be substituted for
one another, a facility that is not available for equivalence related variables. The equivalence classes of an
equivalence relation can substitute for one another, but not individuals within a class.
A partial equivalence relation is transitive and symmetric. Transitive and symmetric imply reexive if and only
if for all a X, there exists a b X such that a ~ b.
A reexive and symmetric relation is a dependency relation, if nite, and a tolerance relation if innite.
A congruence relation is an equivalence relation whose domain X is also the underlying set for an algebraic
structure, and which respects the additional structure. In general, congruence relations play the role of kernels
of homomorphisms, and the quotient of a structure by a congruence relation can be formed. In many important
cases congruence relations have an alternative representation as substructures of the structure on which they
are dened. E.g. the congruence relations on groups correspond to the normal subgroups.
Any equivalence relation is the negation of an apartness relation, though the converse statement only holds in
classical mathematics (as opposed to constructive mathematics), since it is equivalent to the law of excluded
middle.
90 CHAPTER 27. EQUIVALENCE RELATION
A subset Y of X such that a ~ b holds for all a and b in Y, and never for a in Y and b outside Y, is called an equivalence
class of X by ~. Let [a] := {x X | a x} denote the equivalence class to which a belongs. All elements of X
equivalent to each other are also elements of the same equivalence class.
The set of all possible equivalence classes of X by ~, denoted X/ := {[x] | x X} , is the quotient set of X by
~. If X is a topological space, there is a natural way of transforming X/~ into a topological space; see quotient space
for the details.
27.6.3 Projection
Main article: Projection (relational algebra)
The projection of ~ is the function : X X/ dened by (x) = [x] which maps elements of X into their
respective equivalence classes by ~.
Theorem on projections:[1] Let the function f: X B be such that a ~ b f(a) = f(b). Then there is a
unique function g : X/~ B, such that f = g. If f is a surjection and a ~ b f(a) = f(b), then g is a
bijection.
27.6.5 Partition
Main article: Partition of a set
27.7. FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 91
A partition of X is a set P of nonempty subsets of X, such that every element of X is an element of a single element
of P. Each element of P is a cell of the partition. Moreover, the elements of P are pairwise disjoint and their union
is X.
Let X be a nite set with n elements. Since every equivalence relation over X corresponds to a partition of X, and
vice versa, the number of possible equivalence relations on X equals the number of distinct partitions of X, which is
the nth Bell number Bn:
1 kn
Bn = ,
e k!
k=0
where the above is one of the ways to write the nth Bell number.
In both cases, the cells of the partition of X are the equivalence classes of X by ~. Since each element of X belongs
to a unique cell of any partition of X, and since each cell of the partition is identical to an equivalence class of X by
~, each element of X belongs to a unique equivalence class of X by ~. Thus there is a natural bijection between the
set of all possible equivalence relations on X and the set of all partitions of X.
If ~ and are two equivalence relations on the same set S, and a~b implies ab for all a,b S, then is said to be a
coarser relation than ~, and ~ is a ner relation than . Equivalently,
~ is ner than if every equivalence class of ~ is a subset of an equivalence class of , and thus every equivalence
class of is a union of equivalence classes of ~.
The equality equivalence relation is the nest equivalence relation on any set, while the trivial relation that makes all
pairs of elements related is the coarsest.
The relation "~ is ner than " on the collection of all equivalence relations on a xed set is itself a partial order
relation, which makes the collection a geometric lattice.[5]
Given any set X, there is an equivalence relation over the set [XX] of all possible functions XX. Two such
functions are deemed equivalent when their respective sets of xpoints have the same cardinality, corresponding
to cycles of length one in a permutation. Functions equivalent in this manner form an equivalence class on
[XX], and these equivalence classes partition [XX].
An equivalence relation ~ on X is the equivalence kernel of its surjective projection : X X/~.[6] Conversely,
any surjection between sets determines a partition on its domain, the set of preimages of singletons in the
codomain. Thus an equivalence relation over X, a partition of X, and a projection whose domain is X, are three
equivalent ways of specifying the same thing.
The intersection of any collection of equivalence relations over X (binary relations viewed as a subset of X X)
is also an equivalence relation. This yields a convenient way of generating an equivalence relation: given any
binary relation R on X, the equivalence relation generated by R is the smallest equivalence relation containing
R. Concretely, R generates the equivalence relation a ~ b if and only if there exist elements x1 , x2 , ..., xn in X
such that a = x1 , b = xn, and (xi,xi )R or (xi,xi)R, i = 1, ..., n1.
Note that the equivalence relation generated in this manner can be trivial. For instance, the equivalence
relation ~ generated by any total order on X has exactly one equivalence class, X itself, because x ~ y for
all x and y. As another example, any subset of the identity relation on X has equivalence classes that are
the singletons of X.
Equivalence relations can construct new spaces by gluing things together. Let X be the unit Cartesian square
[0,1] [0,1], and let ~ be the equivalence relation on X dened by a, b [0,1] ((a, 0) ~ (a, 1) (0, b) ~ (1, b)).
Then the quotient space X/~ can be naturally identied (homeomorphism) with a torus: take a square piece of
paper, bend and glue together the upper and lower edge to form a cylinder, then bend the resulting cylinder so
as to glue together its two open ends, resulting in a torus.
~ partitions A into equivalence classes. (This is the Fundamental Theorem of Equivalence Relations, mentioned
above);
Given a partition of A, G is a transformation group under composition, whose orbits are the cells of the parti-
tion;
Given a transformation group G over A, there exists an equivalence relation ~ over A, whose equivalence classes
are the orbits of G.[8][9]
In sum, given an equivalence relation ~ over A, there exists a transformation group G over A whose orbits are the
equivalence classes of A under ~.
27.11. EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS AND MATHEMATICAL LOGIC 93
This transformation group characterisation of equivalence relations diers fundamentally from the way lattices char-
acterize order relations. The arguments of the lattice theory operations meet and join are elements of some universe
A. Meanwhile, the arguments of the transformation group operations composition and inverse are elements of a set
of bijections, A A.
Moving to groups in general, let H be a subgroup of some group G. Let ~ be an equivalence relation on G, such that a
~ b (ab1 H). The equivalence classes of ~also called the orbits of the action of H on Gare the right cosets
of H in G. Interchanging a and b yields the left cosets.
Proof.[10] Let function composition interpret group multiplication, and function inverse interpret group inverse.
Then G is a group under composition, meaning that x A g G ([g(x)] = [x]), because G satises the following
four conditions:
G is closed under composition. The composition of any two elements of G exists, because the domain and
codomain of any element of G is A. Moreover, the composition of bijections is bijective;[11]
Existence of inverse function. Every bijective function g has an inverse g1 , such that gg1 = I;
Composition associates. f(gh) = (fg)h. This holds for all functions over all domains.[12]
Let f and g be any two elements of G. By virtue of the denition of G, [g(f(x))] = [f(x)] and [f(x)] = [x], so that
[g(f(x))] = [x]. Hence G is also a transformation group (and an automorphism group) because function composition
preserves the partitioning of A.
Related thinking can be found in Rosen (2008: chpt. 10).
Whereas the notion of free equivalence relation does not exist, that of a free groupoid on a directed graph
does. Thus it is meaningful to speak of a presentation of an equivalence relation, i.e., a presentation of the
corresponding groupoid;
Bundles of groups, group actions, sets, and equivalence relations can be regarded as special cases of the notion
of groupoid, a point of view that suggests a number of analogies;
In many contexts quotienting, and hence the appropriate equivalence relations often called congruences, are
important. This leads to the notion of an internal groupoid in a category.[13]
27.10.3 Lattices
The possible equivalence relations on any set X, when ordered by set inclusion, form a complete lattice, called Con
X by convention. The canonical map ker: X^X Con X, relates the monoid X^X of all functions on X and Con X.
ker is surjective but not injective. Less formally, the equivalence relation ker on X, takes each function f: XX to
its kernel ker f. Likewise, ker(ker) is an equivalence relation on X^X.
An implication of model theory is that the properties dening a relation can be proved independent of each other
(and hence necessary parts of the denition) if and only if, for each property, examples can be found of relations
not satisfying the given property while satisfying all the other properties. Hence the three dening properties of
equivalence relations can be proved mutually independent by the following three examples:
Properties denable in rst-order logic that an equivalence relation may or may not possess include:
Things which equal the same thing also equal one another.
Nowadays, the property described by Common Notion 1 is called Euclidean (replacing equal by are in relation
with). By relation is meant a binary relation, in which aRb is generally distinct from bRa. A Euclidean relation
thus comes in two forms:
Theorem If a relation is (left or right) Euclidean and reexive, it is also symmetric and transitive.
Proof for a left-Euclidean relation
(aRc bRc) aRb [a/c] = (aRa bRa) aRb [reexive; erase T] = bRa aRb. Hence R is symmetric.
(aRc bRc) aRb [symmetry] = (aRc cRb) aRb. Hence R is transitive.
with an analogous proof for a right-Euclidean relation. Hence an equivalence relation is a relation that is Euclidean
and reexive. The Elements mentions neither symmetry nor reexivity, and Euclid probably would have deemed the
reexivity of equality too obvious to warrant explicit mention.
27.14 Notes
[1] Garrett Birkho and Saunders Mac Lane, 1999 (1967). Algebra, 3rd ed. p. 35, Th. 19. Chelsea.
[2] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. p. 31, Th. 8. Springer-Verlag.
[3] Dummit, D. S., and Foote, R. M., 2004. Abstract Algebra, 3rd ed. p. 3, Prop. 2. John Wiley & Sons.
[4] Karel Hrbacek & Thomas Jech (1999) Introduction to Set Theory, 3rd edition, pages 2932, Marcel Dekker
[5] Birkho, Garrett (1995), Lattice Theory, Colloquium Publications, 25 (3rd ed.), American Mathematical Society, ISBN
9780821810255. Sect. IV.9, Theorem 12, page 95
[6] Garrett Birkho and Saunders Mac Lane, 1999 (1967). Algebra, 3rd ed. p. 33, Th. 18. Chelsea.
[7] Rosen (2008), pp. 24345. Less clear is 10.3 of Bas van Fraassen, 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford Univ. Press.
[8] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. Springer-Verlag: 202, Th. 6.
[9] Dummit, D. S., and Foote, R. M., 2004. Abstract Algebra, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons: 114, Prop. 2.
[10] Bas van Fraassen, 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford Univ. Press: 246.
[11] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. Springer-Verlag: 22, Th. 6.
[12] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. Springer-Verlag: 24, Th. 7.
[13] Borceux, F. and Janelidze, G., 2001. Galois theories, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80309-8
27.15 References
Brown, Ronald, 2006. Topology and Groupoids. Booksurge LLC. ISBN 1-4196-2722-8.
Castellani, E., 2003, Symmetry and equivalence in Brading, Katherine, and E. Castellani, eds., Symmetries
in Physics: Philosophical Reections. Cambridge Univ. Press: 422-433.
Robert Dilworth and Crawley, Peter, 1973. Algebraic Theory of Lattices. Prentice Hall. Chpt. 12 discusses
how equivalence relations arise in lattice theory.
Higgins, P.J., 1971. Categories and groupoids. Van Nostrand. Downloadable since 2005 as a TAC Reprint.
John Randolph Lucas, 1973. A Treatise on Time and Space. London: Methuen. Section 31.
Rosen, Joseph (2008) Symmetry Rules: How Science and Nature are Founded on Symmetry. Springer-Verlag.
Mostly chpts. 9,10.
Raymond Wilder (1965) Introduction to the Foundations of Mathematics 2nd edition, Chapter 2-8: Axioms
dening equivalence, pp 4850, John Wiley & Sons.
Euclidean relation
In mathematics, Euclidean relations are a class of binary relations that formalizes Euclid's Common Notion 1 in
The Elements: things which equal the same thing also equal one another.
28.1 Denition
A binary relation R on a set X is Euclidean (sometimes called right Euclidean) if it satises the following: for every
a, b, c in X, if a is related to b and c, then b is related to c.[1]
To write this in predicate logic:
a, b, c X (a R b a R c b R c).
Dually, a relation R on X is left Euclidean if for every a, b, c in X, if b is related to a and c is related to a, then b is
related to c:
a, b, c X (b R a c R a b R c).
28.3 References
[1] Fagin, Ronald (2003), Reasoning About Knowledge, MIT Press, p. 60, ISBN 978-0-262-56200-3.
97
Chapter 29
Exceptional isomorphism
29.1 Groups
L2 (4)
= L2 (5)
= A5 , the smallest non-abelian simple group (order 60);
L2 (7)
= L3 (2), the second-smallest non-abelian simple group (order 168) PSL(2,7);
L2 (9)
= A6 ,
L4 (2)
= A8 ,
PSU4 (2)
= PSp4 (3), between a projective special orthogonal group and a projective symplectic group.
PSL(2, 5)
= A5
= I, the alternating group on ve elements, or equivalently the icosahedral group;
PGL(2, 5)
= S5 , the symmetric group on ve elements;
SL(2, 5)
= 2 A5
= 2I, the double cover of the alternating group A5 , or equivalently the binary icosahedral
group.
L2 (4)
= L2 (5)
= A5 ,
98
29.1. GROUPS 99
The compound of ve tetrahedra expresses the exceptional isomorphism between the icosahedral group and the alternating group on
ve letters.
L2 (9)
= Sp4 (2)
= A6 ,
Sp4 (2)
= S6 ,
L4 (2)
= O6 (+, 2)
= A8 ,
O6 (+, 2)
= S8 .
These can all be explained in a systematic way by using linear algebra (and the action of Sn on ane n -space) to
dene the isomorphism going from the right side to the left side. (The above isomorphisms for A8 and S8 are linked
via the exceptional isomorphism SL4 /2 = SO6 .) There are also some coincidences with symmetries of regular
polyhedra: the alternating group A5 agrees with the icosahedral group (itself an exceptional object), and the double
cover of the alternating group A5 is the binary icosahedral group.
C2
= {1}
= O(1)
= Spin(1)
= Z , the last being the group of units of the integers
100 CHAPTER 29. EXCEPTIONAL ISOMORPHISM
29.1.5 Spheres
The spheres S0 , S1 , and S3 admit group structures, which arise in various ways:
S0
= O(1) ,
S1
= SO(2)
= U(1)
= Spin(2) ,
S3
= Spin(3)
= SU(2)
= Sp(1) .
B2 C2
A3 D3
A4 E 4
D5 E 5
There are some exceptional isomorphisms of Coxeter diagrams, yielding isomorphisms of the corresponding Coxeter
groups and of polytopes realizing the symmetries. These are:
Trivially, A0 = B0 = C0 = D0
A1 = B1 = C1, or sl2
= so3
= sp1
B2 = C2, or so5
= sp2
D2 = A1 A1, or so4
= sl2 sl2 ; note that these are disconnected, but part of the D-series
A3 = D3 sl4
= so6
A4 = E4; the E-series usually starts at 6, but can be started at 4, yielding isomorphisms
D5 = E5
Spin(1) = O(1)
Spin(2) = U(1) = SO(2)
Spin(3) = Sp(1) = SU(2)
Spin(4) = Sp(1) Sp(1)
Spin(5) = Sp(2)
Spin(6) = SU(4)
29.4 Notes
[1] Because these series of objects are presented dierently, they are not identical objects (do not have identical descriptions),
but turn out to describe the same object, hence one refers to this as an isomorphism, not an equality (identity).
102 CHAPTER 29. EXCEPTIONAL ISOMORPHISM
29.5 References
[1] Wilson, Robert A. (2009), Chapter 1: Introduction, The nite simple groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 251, 251,
Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-1-84800-987-5, Zbl 1203.20012, doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-988-2, 2007
preprint; Chapter doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-988-2_1.
Chapter 30
Fiber (mathematics)
In mathematics, the term ber (or bre in British English) can have two meanings, depending on the context:
1. In naive set theory, the ber of the element y in the set Y under a map f : X Y is the inverse image of the
singleton {y} under f.
2. In algebraic geometry, the notion of a ber of a morphism of schemes must be dened more carefully because,
in general, not every point is closed.
30.1 Denitions
The term level set is only used if f maps into the real numbers and so y is simply a number. If f is a continuous
function and if y is in the image of f, then the level set of y under f is a curve in 2D, a surface in 3D, and more
generally a hypersurface of dimension d-1.
103
104 CHAPTER 30. FIBER (MATHEMATICS)
By abuse of language, the following terminology is sometimes used but should be avoided:
Fiber product
Image (category theory)
Image (mathematics)
Inverse relation
Kernel (mathematics)
Level set
Preimage
Relation
Zero set
Chapter 31
Finitary relation
This article is about the set-theoretic notion of relation. For the common case, see binary relation.
For other uses, see Relation (disambiguation).
In mathematics, a nitary relation has a nite number of places. In set theory and logic, a relation is a property
that assigns truth values to k -tuples of individuals. Typically, the property describes a possible connection between
the components of a k -tuple. For a given set of k -tuples, a truth value is assigned to each k -tuple according to
whether the property does or does not hold.
An example of a ternary relation (i.e., between three individuals) is: " X was introduced to Y by Z ", where (X, Y, Z)
is a 3-tuple of persons; for example, "Beatrice Wood was introduced to Henri-Pierre Roch by Marcel Duchamp" is
true, while "Karl Marx was introduced to Friedrich Engels by Queen Victoria" is false.
The data of the table are equivalent to the following set of ordered triples:
S = {(Alice, Bob, Denise), (Charles, Alice, Bob), (Charles, Charles, Alice), (Denise, Denise, Denise)}.
By a slight abuse of notation, it is usual to write S(Alice, Bob, Denise) to say the same thing as the rst row of
the table. The relation S is a ternary relation, since there are three items involved in each row. The relation itself
is a mathematical object dened in terms of concepts from set theory (i.e., the relation is a subset of the Cartesian
product on {Person X, Person Y, Person Z}), that carries all of the information from the table in one neat package.
Mathematically, then, a relation is simply an ordered set.
The table for relation S is an extremely simple example of a relational database. The theoretical aspects of databases
are the specialty of one branch of computer science, while their practical impacts have become all too familiar in our
everyday lives. Computer scientists, logicians, and mathematicians, however, tend to see dierent things when they
look at these concrete examples and samples of the more general concept of a relation.
For one thing, databases are designed to deal with empirical data, and experience is always nite, whereas mathematics
at the very least concerns itself with potential innity. This dierence in perspective brings up a number of ideas that
may be usefully introduced at this point, if by no means covered in depth.
105
106 CHAPTER 31. FINITARY RELATION
Equality and inequality, denoted by signs such as ' = ' and ' < ' in statements like ' 5 < 12 ';
Being a divisor of, denoted by the sign ' | ' in statements like ' 13 | 143 ';
Set membership, denoted by the sign ' ' in statements like ' 1 N '.
The simpler of the two denitions of k-place relations encountered in mathematics is:
Denition 1. A relation L over the sets X1 , , Xk is a subset of their Cartesian product, written L X1 Xk.
Relations are classied according to the number of sets in the dening Cartesian product, in other words, according
to the number of terms following L. Hence:
Relations with more than four terms are usually referred to as k-ary or n-ary, for example, a 5-ary relation. A k-ary
relation is simply a set of k-tuples.
The second denition 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 specication 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.
Denition 2. A relation L over the sets X1 , , Xk is a (k + 1)-tuple L = (X1 , , Xk, G(L)), where G(L) is a subset
of the Cartesian product X1 Xk. G(L) is called the graph of L.
Elements of a relation are more briey denoted by using boldface characters, for example, the constant element a =
(a1 , , ak) or the variable element x = (x1 , , xk).
A statement of the form "a is in the relation L " or "a satises L " is taken to mean that a is in L under the rst
denition and that a is in G(L) under the second denition.
The following considerations apply under either denition:
31.4. HISTORY 107
The sets Xj for j = 1 to k are called the domains of the relation. Under the rst denition, the relation does not
uniquely determine a given sequence of domains.
If all of the domains Xj are the same set X, then it is simpler to refer to L as a k-ary relation over X.
If any of the domains Xj is empty, then the dening Cartesian product is empty, and the only relation over such
a sequence of domains is the empty relation L = . Hence it is commonly stipulated that all of the domains
be nonempty.
As a rule, whatever denition best ts the application at hand will be chosen for that purpose, and anything that falls
under it will be called a relation for the duration of that discussion. If it becomes necessary to distinguish the two
denitions, an entity satisfying the second denition may be called an embedded or included relation.
If L is a relation over the domains X1 , , Xk, it is conventional to consider a sequence of terms called variables, x1 ,
, xk, that are said to range over the respective domains.
Let a Boolean domain B be a two-element set, say, B = {0, 1}, whose elements can be interpreted as logical values,
typically 0 = false and 1 = true. The characteristic function of the relation L, written L or (L), is the Boolean-valued
function L : X1 Xk B, dened in such a way that L( x ) = 1 just in case the k-tuple x is in the relation L.
Such a function can also be called an indicator function, particularly in probability and statistics, to avoid confusion
with the notion of a characteristic function in probability theory.
It is conventional in applied mathematics, computer science, and statistics to refer to a Boolean-valued function like L
as a k-place predicate. From the more abstract viewpoint of formal logic and model theory, the relation L constitutes
a logical model or a relational structure that serves as one of many possible interpretations of some k-place predicate
symbol.
Because relations arise in many scientic disciplines as well as in many branches of mathematics and logic, there
is considerable variation in terminology. This article treats a relation as the set-theoretic extension of a relational
concept or term. A variant usage reserves the term relation to the corresponding logical entity, either the logical
comprehension, which is the totality of intensions or abstract 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, 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.
31.4 History
The logician Augustus De Morgan, in work published around 1860, was the rst to articulate the notion of relation
in anything like its present sense. He also stated the rst formal results in the theory of relations (on De Morgan and
relations, see Merrill 1990). Charles Sanders Peirce restated and extended De Morgans results. Bertrand Russell
(1938; 1st ed. 1903) was historically important, in that it brought together in one place many 19th century results on
relations, especially orders, by Peirce, Gottlob Frege, Georg Cantor, Richard Dedekind, and others. Russell and A.
N. Whitehead made free use of these results in their Principia Mathematica.
31.5 Notes
[1] De Morgan, A. (1858) On the syllogism, part 3 in Heath, P., ed. (1966) On the syllogism and other logical writings.
Routledge. P. 119,
Functional relation
Incidence structure
Hypergraph
108 CHAPTER 31. FINITARY RELATION
Logic of relatives
Logical matrix
Partial order
Projection (set theory)
Reexive relation
Relation algebra
Sign relation
Transitive relation
Relational algebra
Relational model
Predicate (mathematical logic)
31.7 References
Peirce, C.S. (1870), Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplication
of the Conceptions of Booles Calculus of Logic, Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9,
31778, 1870. Reprinted, Collected Papers CP 3.45149, Chronological Edition CE 2, 359429.
Ulam, S.M. and Bednarek, A.R. (1990), On the Theory of Relational Structures and Schemata for Parallel
Computation, pp. 477508 in A.R. Bednarek and Franoise Ulam (eds.), Analogies Between Analogies: The
Mathematical Reports of S.M. Ulam and His Los Alamos Collaborators, University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA.
31.8 Bibliography
Bourbaki, N. (1994) Elements of the History of Mathematics, John Meldrum, trans. Springer-Verlag.
Carnap, Rudolf (1958) Introduction to Symbolic Logic with Applications. Dover Publications.
Halmos, P.R. (1960) Naive Set Theory. Princeton NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Lawvere, F.W., and R. Rosebrugh (2003) Sets for Mathematics, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lucas, J. R. (1999) Conceptual Roots of Mathematics. Routledge.
Maddux, R.D. (2006) Relation Algebras, vol. 150 in 'Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics.
Elsevier Science.
Merrill, Dan D. (1990) Augustus De Morgan and the logic of relations. Kluwer.
Peirce, C.S. (1984) Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Volume 2, 1867-1871. Peirce
Edition Project, eds. Indiana University Press.
Russell, Bertrand (1903/1938) The Principles of Mathematics, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Suppes, Patrick (1960/1972) Axiomatic Set Theory. Dover Publications.
Tarski, A. (1956/1983) Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Papers from 1923 to 1938, J.H. Woodger, trans.
1st edition, Oxford University Press. 2nd edition, J. Corcoran, ed. Indianapolis IN: Hackett Publishing.
Ulam, S.M. (1990) Analogies Between Analogies: The Mathematical Reports of S.M. Ulam and His Los Alamos
Collaborators in A.R. Bednarek and Franoise Ulam, eds., University of California Press.
R. Frass, Theory of Relations (North Holland; 2000).
Chapter 32
Foundational relation
In set theory, a foundational relation on a set or proper class lets each nonempty subset admit a relational minimal
element.
Formally, let (A, R) be a binary relation structure, where A is a class (set or proper class), and R is a binary relation
dened on A. Then (A, R) is a foundational relation if and only if any nonempty subset in A has a R-minimal element.
In predicate logic,
( )
(S) S A S = (x S)(S R1 {x} = ) , [1]
in which denotes the empty set, and R1 {x} denotes the class of the elements that precede x in the relation R. That
is,
32.2 References
[1] See Denition 6.21 in Zaring W.M., G. Takeuti (1971). Introduction to axiomatic set theory (2nd, rev. ed.). New York:
Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0387900241.
[2] See Theorem 6.19 and Denition 6.20 in Zaring W.M., G. Takeuti (1971). Introduction to axiomatic set theory (2nd, rev.
ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0387900241.
109
Chapter 33
Homogeneous relation
Relation (mathematics)" redirects here. For a more general notion of relation, see nitary relation. For a more
combinatorial viewpoint, see theory of relations. For other uses, see Relation (disambiguation).
In mathematics, a binary relation on a set A is a collection of ordered pairs of elements of A. In other words, it is a
subset of the Cartesian product A2 = A A. More generally, a binary relation between two sets A and B is a subset
of A B. The terms correspondence, dyadic relation and 2-place relation are synonyms for binary relation.
An example is the "divides" relation between the set of prime numbers P and the set of integers Z, in which every
prime p is associated with every integer z that is a multiple of p (but with no integer that is not a multiple of p). In
this relation, for instance, the prime 2 is associated with numbers that include 4, 0, 6, 10, but not 1 or 9; and the
prime 3 is associated with numbers that include 0, 6, and 9, but not 4 or 13.
Binary relations are used in many branches of mathematics to model concepts like "is greater than", "is equal to", and
divides in arithmetic, "is congruent to" in geometry, is adjacent to in graph theory, is orthogonal to in linear
algebra and many more. The concept of function is dened as a special kind of binary relation. Binary relations are
also heavily used in computer science.
A binary relation is the special case n = 2 of an n-ary relation R A1 An, that is, a set of n-tuples where the
jth component of each n-tuple is taken from the jth domain Aj of the relation. An example for a ternary relation on
ZZZ is " ... lies between ... and ..., containing e.g. the triples (5,2,8), (5,8,2), and (4,9,7).
In some systems of axiomatic set theory, relations are extended to classes, which are generalizations of sets. This
extension is needed for, among other things, modeling the concepts of is an element of or is a subset of in set
theory, without running into logical inconsistencies such as Russells paradox.
A binary relation R between arbitrary sets (or classes) X (the set of departure) and Y (the set of destination or
codomain) is specied by its graph G, which is a subset of the Cartesian product X Y. The binary relation R itself
is usually identied with its graph G, but some authors dene it as an ordered triple (X, Y, G), which is otherwise
referred to as a correspondence.[1]
The statement (x, y) G is read "x is R-related to y", and is denoted by xRy or R(x, y). The latter notation corresponds
to viewing R as the characteristic function of the subset G of X Y, i.e. R(x, y) equals to 1 (true), if (x, y) G, and
0 (false) otherwise.
The order of the elements in each pair of G is important: if a b, then aRb and bRa can be true or false, independently
of each other. Resuming the above example, the prime 3 divides the integer 9, but 9 doesn't divide 3.
The domain of R is the set of all x such that xRy for at least one y. The range of R is the set of all y such that xRy
for at least one x. The eld of R is the union of its domain and its range.[2][3][4]
110
33.2. SPECIAL TYPES OF BINARY RELATIONS 111
33.1.2 Example
Example: Suppose there are four objects {ball, car, doll, gun} and four persons {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}. Suppose
that John owns the ball, Mary owns the doll, and Venus owns the car. Nobody owns the gun and Ian owns nothing.
Then the binary relation is owned by is given as
R = ({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)}).
Thus the rst element of R is the set of objects, the second is the set of persons, and the last element is a set of ordered
pairs of the form (object, owner).
The pair (ball, John), denoted by RJ means that the ball is owned by John.
Two dierent relations could have the same graph. For example: the relation
({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)})
is dierent from the previous one as everyone is an owner. But the graphs of the two relations are the same.
Nevertheless, R is usually identied or even dened as G(R) and an ordered pair (x, y) G(R)" is usually denoted as
"(x, y) R".[5]
injective (also called left-unique[8] ): for all x and z in X and y in Y it holds that if xRy and zRy then x = z. For
example, the green relation in the diagram is injective, but the red relation is not, as it relates e.g. both x = 5
and z = +5 to y = 25.
functional (also called univalent[9] or right-unique[8] or right-denite[10] ): for all x in X, and y and z in Y
it holds that if xRy and xRz then y = z; such a binary relation is called a partial function. Both relations in
the picture are functional. An example for a non-functional relation can be obtained by rotating the red graph
clockwise by 90 degrees, i.e. by considering the relation x=y2 which relates e.g. x=25 to both y=5 and z=+5.
112 CHAPTER 33. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
one-to-one (also written 1-to-1): injective and functional. The green relation is one-to-one, but the red is not.
Totality properties (only denable if the sets of departure X resp. destination Y are specied; not to be confused with
a total relation):
left-total:[8] for all x in X there exists a y in Y such that xRy. For example, R is left-total when it is a function
or a multivalued function. Note that this property, although sometimes also referred to as total, is dierent
from the denition of total in the next section. Both relations in the picture are left-total. The relation x=y2 ,
obtained from the above rotation, is not left-total, as it doesn't relate, e.g., x = 14 to any real number y.
surjective (also called right-total[8] or onto): for all y in Y there exists an x in X such that xRy. The green
relation is surjective, but the red relation is not, as it doesn't relate any real number x to e.g. y = 14.
33.3. RELATIONS OVER A SET 113
A function: a relation that is functional and left-total. Both the green and the red relation are functions.
A bijection: a surjective one-to-one or surjective injective function is said to be bijective, also known as
one-to-one correspondence.[11] The green relation is bijective, but the red is not.
33.2.1 Difunctional
Less commonly encountered is the notion of difunctional (or regular) relation, dened as a relation R such that
R=RR1 R.[12]
To understand this notion better, it helps to consider a relation as mapping every element xX to a set xR = { yY
| xRy }.[12] This set is sometimes called the successor neighborhood of x in R; one can dene the predecessor
neighborhood analogously.[13] Synonymous terms for these notions are afterset and respectively foreset.[6]
A difunctional relation can then be equivalently characterized as a relation R such that wherever x1 R and x2 R have a
non-empty intersection, then these two sets coincide; formally x1 R x2 R implies x1 R = x2 R.[12]
As examples, any function or any functional (right-unique) relation is difunctional; the converse doesn't hold. If one
considers a relation R from set to itself (X = Y), then if R is both transitive and symmetric (i.e. a partial equivalence
relation), then it is also difunctional.[14] The converse of this latter statement also doesn't hold.
A characterization of difunctional relations, which also explains their name, is to consider two functions f: A C
and g: B C and then dene the following set which generalizes the kernel of a single function as joint kernel: ker(f,
g) = { (a, b) A B | f(a) = g(b) }. Every difunctional relation R A B arises as the joint kernel of two functions
f: A C and g: B C for some set C.[15]
In automata theory, the term rectangular relation has also been used to denote a difunctional relation. This ter-
minology is justied by the fact that when represented as a boolean matrix, the columns and rows of a difunctional
relation can be arranged in such a way as to present rectangular blocks of true on the (asymmetric) main diagonal.[16]
Other authors however use the term rectangular to denote any heterogeneous relation whatsoever.[7]
reexive: for all x in X it holds that xRx. For example, greater than or equal to () is a reexive relation but
greater than (>) is not.
irreexive (or strict): for all x in X it holds that not xRx. For example, > is an irreexive relation, but is not.
coreexive relation: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then x = y.[19] An example of a coreexive relation
is the relation on integers in which each odd number is related to itself and there are no other relations. The
equality relation is the only example of a both reexive and coreexive relation, and any coreexive relation is
a subset of the identity relation.
The previous 3 alternatives are far from being exhaustive; e.g. the red relation y=x2 from the
above picture is neither irreexive, nor coreexive, nor reexive, since it contains the pair
(0,0), and (2,4), but not (2,2), respectively.
114 CHAPTER 33. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
symmetric: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then yRx. Is a blood relative of is a symmetric relation,
because x is a blood relative of y if and only if y is a blood relative of x.
antisymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy and yRx then x = y. For example, is anti-symmetric; so is >, but
vacuously (the condition in the denition is always false).[20]
asymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy then not yRx. A relation is asymmetric if and only if it is both
anti-symmetric and irreexive.[21] For example, > is asymmetric, but is not.
transitive: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and yRz then xRz. For example, is ancestor of is transitive,
while is parent of is not. A transitive relation is irreexive if and only if it is asymmetric.[22]
total: for all x and y in X it holds that xRy or yRx (or both). This denition for total is dierent from left total
in the previous section. For example, is a total relation.
trichotomous: for all x and y in X exactly one of xRy, yRx or x = y holds. For example, > is a trichotomous
relation, while the relation divides on natural numbers is not.[23]
Right Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and xRz, then yRz.
Left Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if yRx and zRx, then yRz.
Euclidean: A Euclidean relation is both left and right Euclidean. Equality is a Euclidean relation because if
x=y and x=z, then y=z.
serial: for all x in X, there exists y in X such that xRy. "Is greater than" is a serial relation on the integers. But
it is not a serial relation on the positive integers, because there is no y in the positive integers such that 1>y.[24]
However, "is less than" is a serial relation on the positive integers, the rational numbers and the real numbers.
Every reexive relation is serial: for a given x, choose y=x. A serial relation can be equivalently characterized
as every element having a non-empty successor neighborhood (see the previous section for the denition of this
notion). Similarly an inverse serial relation is a relation in which every element has non-empty predecessor
neighborhood.[13]
set-like (or local): for every x in X, the class of all y such that yRx is a set. (This makes sense only if relations
on proper classes are allowed.) The usual ordering < on the class of ordinal numbers is set-like, while its inverse
> is not.
A relation that is reexive, symmetric, and transitive is called an equivalence relation. A relation that is symmetric,
transitive, and serial is also reexive. A relation that is only symmetric and transitive (without necessarily being
reexive) is called a partial equivalence relation.
A relation that is reexive, antisymmetric, and transitive is called a partial order. A partial order that is total is called
a total order, simple order, linear order, or a chain.[25] A linear order where every nonempty subset has a least element
is called a well-order.
Union: R S X Y, dened as R S = { (x, y) | (x, y) R or (x, y) S }. For example, is the union of >
and =.
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, and S is a binary relation over Y and Z, then the following is a binary relation
over X and Z: (see main article composition of relations)
33.4. OPERATIONS ON BINARY RELATIONS 115
Composition: S R, also denoted R ; S (or R S), dened as S R = { (x, z) | there exists y Y, such that (x, y)
R and (y, z) S }. The order of R and S in the notation S R, used here agrees with the standard notational
order for composition of functions. For example, the composition is mother of is parent of yields is
maternal grandparent of, while the composition is parent of is mother of yields is grandmother of.
A relation R on sets X and Y is said to be contained in a relation S on X and Y if R is a subset of S, that is, if x R y
always implies x S y. In this case, if R and S disagree, R is also said to be smaller than S. For example, > is contained
in .
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following is a binary relation over Y and X:
Inverse or converse: R 1 , dened as R 1 = { (y, x) | (x, y) R }. A binary relation over a set is equal to its
inverse if and only if it is symmetric. See also duality (order theory). For example, is less than (<) is the
inverse of is greater than (>).
If R is a binary relation over X, then each of the following is a binary relation over X:
Reexive closure: R = , dened as R = = { (x, x) | x X } R or the smallest reexive relation over X containing
R. This can be proven to be equal to the intersection of all reexive relations containing R.
Reexive reduction: R , dened as R
= R \ { (x, x) | x X } or the largest irreexive relation over X
contained in R.
Transitive closure: R + , dened as the smallest transitive relation over X containing R. This can be seen to be
equal to the intersection of all transitive relations containing R.
Reexive transitive closure: R *, dened as R * = (R + ) = , the smallest preorder containing R.
Reexive transitive symmetric closure: R , dened as the smallest equivalence relation over X containing
R.
33.4.1 Complement
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following too:
The complement S is dened as x S y if not x R y. For example, on real numbers, is the complement of >.
33.4.2 Restriction
The restriction of a binary relation on a set X to a subset S is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x and
y are in S.
If a relation is reexive, irreexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, asymmetric, transitive, total, trichotomous, a partial
order, total order, strict weak order, total preorder (weak order), or an equivalence relation, its restrictions are too.
However, the transitive closure of a restriction is a subset of the restriction of the transitive closure, i.e., in general
not equal. For example, restricting the relation "x is parent of y" to females yields the relation "x is mother of
the woman y"; its transitive closure doesn't relate a woman with her paternal grandmother. On the other hand, the
116 CHAPTER 33. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
transitive closure of is parent of is is ancestor of"; its restriction to females does relate a woman with her paternal
grandmother.
Also, the various concepts of completeness (not to be confused with being total) do not carry over to restrictions.
For example, on the set of real numbers a property of the relation "" is that every non-empty subset S of R with an
upper bound in R has a least upper bound (also called supremum) in R. However, for a set of rational numbers this
supremum is not necessarily rational, so the same property does not hold on the restriction of the relation "" to the
set of rational numbers.
The left-restriction (right-restriction, respectively) of a binary relation between X and Y to a subset S of its domain
(codomain) is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x (y) is an element of S.
the number of equivalence relations is the number of partitions, which is the Bell number.
The binary relations can be grouped into pairs (relation, complement), except that for n = 0 the relation is its own
complement. The non-symmetric ones can be grouped into quadruples (relation, complement, inverse, inverse com-
plement).
greater than
greater than or equal to
less than
less than or equal to
divides (evenly)
is a subset of
equivalence relations:
equality
is parallel to (for ane spaces)
is in bijection with
isomorphy
independency relation, a symmetric, irreexive relation which is the complement of some dependency relation.
Hasse diagram
Incidence structure
Logic of relatives
Order theory
Triadic relation
33.9 Notes
[1] Encyclopedic dictionary of Mathematics. MIT. 2000. pp. 13301331. ISBN 0-262-59020-4.
[2] Suppes, Patrick (1972) [originally published by D. van Nostrand Company in 1960]. Axiomatic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN
0-486-61630-4.
[3] Smullyan, Raymond M.; Fitting, Melvin (2010) [revised and corrected republication of the work originally published in
1996 by Oxford University Press, New York]. Set Theory and the Continuum Problem. Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-47484-7.
[4] Levy, Azriel (2002) [republication of the work published by Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York in 1979].
Basic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN 0-486-42079-5.
[5] Megill, Norman (5 August 1993). df-br (Metamath Proof Explorer)". Retrieved 18 November 2016.
118 CHAPTER 33. HOMOGENEOUS RELATION
[6] Christodoulos A. Floudas; Panos M. Pardalos (2008). Encyclopedia of Optimization (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business
Media. pp. 299300. ISBN 978-0-387-74758-3.
[7] Michael Winter (2007). Goguen Categories: A Categorical Approach to L-fuzzy Relations. Springer. pp. xxi. ISBN
978-1-4020-6164-6.
[8] Kilp, Knauer and Mikhalev: p. 3. The same four denitions appear in the following:
Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook.
Springer Science & Business Media. p. 506. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
Eike Best (1996). Semantics of Sequential and Parallel Programs. Prentice Hall. pp. 1921. ISBN 978-0-13-
460643-9.
Robert-Christoph Riemann (1999). Modelling of Concurrent Systems: Structural and Semantical Methods in the High
Level Petri Net Calculus. Herbert Utz Verlag. pp. 2122. ISBN 978-3-89675-629-9.
[9] Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7, Chapt. 5
[10] Ms, Stephan (2007), Reasoning on Spatial Semantic Integrity Constraints, Spatial Information Theory: 8th International
Conference, COSIT 2007, Melbourne, Australia, September 1923, 2007, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
4736, Springer, pp. 285302, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74788-8_18
[11] Note that the use of correspondence here is narrower than as general synonym for binary relation.
[12] Chris Brink; Wolfram Kahl; Gunther Schmidt (1997). Relational Methods in Computer Science. Springer Science &
Business Media. p. 200. ISBN 978-3-211-82971-4.
[13] Yao, Y. (2004). Semantics of Fuzzy Sets in Rough Set Theory. Transactions on Rough Sets II. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. 3135. p. 309. ISBN 978-3-540-23990-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27778-1_15.
[14] William Craig (2006). Semigroups Underlying First-order Logic. American Mathematical Soc. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-8218-
6588-0.
[15] Gumm, H. P.; Zarrad, M. (2014). Coalgebraic Simulations and Congruences. Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8446. p. 118. ISBN 978-3-662-44123-7. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44124-4_7.
[16] Julius Richard Bchi (1989). Finite Automata, Their Algebras and Grammars: Towards a Theory of Formal Expressions.
Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 3537. ISBN 978-1-4613-8853-1.
[17] M. E. Mller (2012). Relational Knowledge Discovery. Cambridge University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-521-19021-3.
[18] Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook. Springer
Science & Business Media. p. 496. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
[19] Fonseca de Oliveira, J. N., & Pereira Cunha Rodrigues, C. D. J. (2004). Transposing Relations: From Maybe Functions
to Hash Tables. In Mathematics of Program Construction (p. 337).
[20] Smith, Douglas; Eggen, Maurice; St. Andre, Richard (2006), A Transition to Advanced Mathematics (6th ed.), Brooks/Cole,
p. 160, ISBN 0-534-39900-2
[21] Nievergelt, Yves (2002), Foundations of Logic and Mathematics: Applications to Computer Science and Cryptography,
Springer-Verlag, p. 158.
[22] Flaka, V.; Jeek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF). Prague: School
of Mathematics Physics Charles University. p. 1. Lemma 1.1 (iv). This source refers to asymmetric relations as strictly
antisymmetric.
[24] Yao, Y.Y.; Wong, S.K.M. (1995). Generalization of rough sets using relationships between attribute values (PDF).
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Joint Conference on Information Sciences: 3033..
[25] Joseph G. Rosenstein, Linear orderings, Academic Press, 1982, ISBN 0-12-597680-1, p. 4
[26] Tarski, Alfred; Givant, Steven (1987). A formalization of set theory without variables. American Mathematical Society. p.
3. ISBN 0-8218-1041-3.
33.10. REFERENCES 119
33.10 References
M. Kilp, U. Knauer, A.V. Mikhalev, Monoids, Acts and Categories: with Applications to Wreath Products and
Graphs, De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics vol. 29, Walter de Gruyter, 2000, ISBN 3-11-015248-7.
Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.
Hypostatic abstraction
Hypostatic abstraction in mathematical logic, also known as hypostasis or subjectal abstraction, is a formal
operation that transforms a predicate into a relation; for example Honey is sweet is transformed into Honey has
sweetness. The relation is created between the original subject and a new term that represents the property expressed
by the original predicate.
Hypostasis changes a propositional formula of the form X is Y to another one of the form X has the property of being
Y or X has Y-ness. The logical functioning of the second object Y-ness consists solely in the truth-values of those
propositions that have the corresponding abstract property Y as the predicate. The object of thought introduced in
this way may be called a hypostatic object and in some senses an abstract object and a formal object.
The above denition is adapted from the one given by Charles Sanders Peirce (CP 4.235, The Simplest Mathematics
(1902), in Collected Papers, CP 4.227323). As Peirce describes it, the main point about the formal operation of
hypostatic abstraction, insofar as it operates on formal linguistic expressions, is that it converts an adjective or predicate
into an extra subject, thus increasing by one the number of subject slots -- called the arity or adicity -- of the main
predicate.
The transformation of honey is sweet into honey possesses sweetness can be viewed in several ways:
The grammatical trace of this hypostatic transformation is a process that extracts the adjective sweet from the
predicate is sweet, replacing it by a new, increased-arity predicate possesses, and as a by-product of the reaction,
as it were, precipitating out the substantive sweetness as a second subject of the new predicate.
The abstraction of hypostasis takes the concrete physical sense of taste found in honey is sweet and gives it formal
metaphysical characteristics in honey has sweetness.
120
34.1. SEE ALSO 121
34.2 References
Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 16 (19311935), Charles Hartshorne and Paul
Weiss, eds., vols. 78 (1958), Arthur W. Burks, ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Idempotence
Idempotence (UK: /dmpotns/;[1] US: /admpotns/ EYE-dm-POH-tns)[2] is the property of certain operations
in mathematics and computer science that they can be applied multiple times without changing the result beyond the
initial application. The concept of idempotence arises in a number of places in abstract algebra (in particular, in the
theory of projectors and closure operators) and functional programming (in which it is connected to the property of
referential transparency).
The term was introduced by Benjamin Peirce[3] in the context of elements of algebras that remain invariant when
raised to a positive integer power, and literally means "(the quality of having) the same power, from idem + potence
(same + power).
There are several meanings of idempotence, depending on what the concept is applied to:
A unary operation (or function) is idempotent if, whenever it is applied twice to any value, it gives the same
result as if it were applied once; i.e., ((x)) (x). For example, the absolute value function, where abs(abs(x))
abs(x), is idempotent.
Given a binary operation, an idempotent element (or simply an idempotent) for the operation is a value for
which the operation, when given that value for both of its operands, gives that value as the result. For example,
the number 1 is an idempotent of multiplication: 1 1 = 1.
A binary operation is called idempotent if all elements are idempotent elements with respect to the operation.
In other words, whenever it is applied to two equal values, it gives that value as the result. For example, the
function giving the maximum value of two equal values is idempotent: max(x, x) x.
35.1 Denitions
A unary operation f , that is, a map from some set S into itself, is called idempotent if, for all x in S ,
f (f (x)) = f (x)
In particular, the identity function idS , dened by idS (x) = x , is idempotent, as is the constant function Kc , where
c is an element of S , dened by Kc (x) = c .
An important class of idempotent functions is given by projections in a vector space. An example of a projection is
the function xy dened by xy (x, y, z) = (x, y, 0) , which projects an arbitrary point in 3D space to a point on the
xy -plane, where the third coordinate ( z ) is equal to 0.
122
35.2. COMMON EXAMPLES 123
A unary operation f : S S is idempotent if it maps each element of S to a xed point of f . We can partition a
set with n elements into k chosen xed points and n k non-xed points, and then k nk is the number of dierent
idempotent functions. Hence, taking into account all possible partitions,
n ( )
n
k nk
k
k=0
is the total number of possible idempotent functions on the set. The integer sequence of the number of idempotent
functions as given by the sum above for n = {0, 1, 2, . . . } starts with 1, 1, 3, 10, 41, 196, 1057, 6322, 41393, . . . .
(sequence A000248 in the OEIS)
Neither the property of being idempotent nor that of being not is preserved under composition of unary functions.[4]
As an example for the former, f(x) = x mod 3 and g(x) = max(x, 5) are both idempotent, but f g is not,[5] although
g f happens to be.[6] As an example for the latter, the negation function on truth values isn't idempotent, but
is.
Given a binary operation on a set S , an element x is said to be idempotent (with respect to ) if:
x x = x.
In particular an identity element of , if it exists, is idempotent with respect to the operation , and the same is
true of an absorbing element. The binary operation itself is called idempotent if every element of S is idempotent.
That is, for all x S where denotes set membership:
x x = x.
For example, the operations of set union and set intersection are both idempotent, as are logical conjunction and
logical disjunction, and, in general, the meet and join operations of a lattice.
35.1.3 Connections
The statement that the binary operation on a set S is idempotent, is equivalent to the statement that every
element of S is idempotent for .
The dening property of unary idempotence, f(f(x)) = f(x) for x in the domain of f, can equivalently be
rewritten as f f = f, using the binary operation of function composition denoted by . Thus, the statement
that f is an idempotent unary operation on S is equivalent to the statement that f is an idempotent element with
respect to the function composition operation on functions from S to S.
35.2.1 Functions
As mentioned above, the identity map and the constant maps are always idempotent maps. The absolute value function
of a real or complex argument, and the oor function of a real argument are idempotent.
The function that assigns to every subset U of some topological space X the closure of U is idempotent on the power
set P (X) of X . It is an example of a closure operator; all closure operators are idempotent functions.
124 CHAPTER 35. IDEMPOTENCE
The operation of subtracting the mean of a list of numbers from every number in the list is idempotent. For example,
consider the numbers 3, 6, 8, 8, and10 . The mean is 3+6+8+8+10 5 = 35
5 = 7 . Subtracting 7 from every number in
(4)+(1)+1+1+3
the list yields (4) , (1) , 1, 1, 3 . The mean of that list is 5 = 05 = 0 . Subtracting 0 from every
number in that list yields the same list.
An idempotent element of a ring is, by denition, an element that is idempotent for the rings multiplication.[7] That
is, an element a is idempotent precisely when a2 = a.
Idempotent elements of rings yield direct decompositions of modules, and play a role in describing other homological
properties of the ring. While idempotent usually refers to the multiplication operation of a ring, there are rings in
which both operations are idempotent: Boolean algebras are such an example.
In computer science, the term idempotent is used more comprehensively to describe an operation that will produce
the same results if executed once or multiple times.[9] This may have a dierent meaning depending on the context
in which it is applied. In the case of methods or subroutine calls with side eects, for instance, it means that the
modied state remains the same after the rst call. In functional programming, though, an idempotent function is
one that has the property f(f(x)) = f(x) for any value x.[10]
This is a very useful property in many situations, as it means that an operation can be repeated or retried as often
as necessary without causing unintended eects. With non-idempotent operations, the algorithm may have to keep
track of whether the operation was already performed or not.
35.3.1 Examples
A function looking up a customers name and address in a database is typically idempotent, since this will not cause
the database to change. Similarly, changing a customers address is typically idempotent, because the nal address
will be the same no matter how many times it is submitted. However, placing an order for a car for the customer is
typically not idempotent, since running the call several times will lead to several orders being placed. Canceling an
order is idempotent, because the order remains canceled no matter how many requests are made.
A composition of idempotent methods or subroutines, however, is not necessarily idempotent if a later method in
the sequence changes a value that an earlier method depends on idempotence is not closed under composition. For
35.4. APPLIED EXAMPLES 125
example, suppose the initial value of a variable is 3 and there is a sequence that reads the variable, then changes it to 5,
and then reads it again. Each step in the sequence is idempotent: both steps reading the variable have no side eects
and changing a variable to 5 will always have the same eect no matter how many times it is executed. Nonetheless,
executing the entire sequence once produces the output (3, 5), but executing it a second time produces the output (5,
5), so the sequence is not idempotent.[11]
In the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), idempotence and safety are the major attributes that separate HTTP
verbs. Of the major HTTP verbs, GET, PUT, and DELETE should be implemented in an idempotent manner
according to the standard, but POST need not be.[11] GET retrieves a resource; PUT stores content at a resource;
and DELETE eliminates a resource. As in the example above, reading data usually has no side eects, so it is
idempotent (in fact nullipotent). Storing and deleting a given set of content are each usually idempotent as long as the
request species a location or identier that uniquely identies that resource and only that resource again in the future.
The PUT and DELETE operations with unique identiers reduce to the simple case of assignment to an immutable
variable of either a value or the null-value, respectively, and are idempotent for the same reason; the end result is
always the same as the result of the initial execution.
Violation of the unique identication requirement in storage or deletion typically causes violation of idempotence.
For example, storing or deleting a given set of content without specifying a unique identier: POST requests, which
do not need to be idempotent, often do not contain unique identiers, so the creation of the identier is delegated
to the receiving system which then creates a corresponding new record. Similarly, PUT and DELETE requests with
nonspecic criteria may result in dierent outcomes depending on the state of the system - for example, a request to
delete the most recent record. In each case, subsequent executions will further modify the state of the system, so they
are not idempotent.
In Event Stream Processing, idempotence refers to the ability of a system to produce the same outcome, even if an
event or message is received more than once.
In a load-store architecture, instructions that might possibly cause a page fault are idempotent. So if a page fault
occurs, the OS can load the page from disk and then simply re-execute the faulted instruction. In a processor where
such instructions are not idempotent, dealing with page faults is much more complex.
When reformatting output, pretty-printing is expected to be idempotent. In other words, if the output is already
pretty, there should be nothing to do for the pretty-printer.
Biordered set
Involution (mathematics)
35.6 References
[1] idempotence. Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. 2010.
[4] If f and g commute, i.e. if f g = g f, then idempotency of both f and g implies that of f g, since (f g) (f g) = (f
f) (g g) = f g, using the associativity of composition.
[6] also showing that commutation of f and g is not a necessary condition for idempotency preservation
[8] Gondran & Minoux. Graphs, dioids and semirings. Springer, 2008, p. 34
[9] Rodriguez, Alex. RESTful Web services: The basics. IBM developerWorks. IBM. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
[10] http://foldoc.org/idempotent
[11] IETF, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content. See also HyperText Transfer Protocol.
Goodearl, K. R. (1991), von Neumann regular rings (2 ed.), Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co.
Inc., pp. xviii+412, ISBN 0-89464-632-X, MR 1150975 (93m:16006)
Lam, T. Y. (2001), A rst course in noncommutative rings, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 131 (2 ed.), New
York: Springer-Verlag, pp. xx+385, ISBN 0-387-95183-0, MR 1838439 (2002c:16001)
Lang, Serge (1993), Algebra (Third ed.), Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, ISBN 978-0-201-55540-0, Zbl
0848.13001 p. 443
Peirce, Benjamin. Linear Associative Algebra 1870.
Polcino Milies, Csar; Sehgal, Sudarshan K. (2002), An introduction to group rings, Algebras and Applications,
1, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. xii+371, ISBN 1-4020-0238-6, MR 1896125 (2003b:16026)
Chapter 36
Idempotent relation
In mathematics, an idempotent binary relation R X X is one for which R R = R.[1][2] This notion generalizes
that of an idempotent function to relations. Each idempotent relation is necessarily transitive, as the latter means R
R R.
For example, the relation < on is idempotent. In contrast, < on is not, since (<) (<) (<) does not hold: e.g. 1
< 2, but 1 < x < 2 is false for every x .
Idempotent relations have been used as an example to illustrate the application of Mechanized Formalisation of math-
ematics using the interactive theorem prover Isabelle/HOL. Besides checking the mathematical properties of nite
idempotent relations, an algorithm for counting the number of idempotent relations has been derived in Isabelle/HOL.
[3][4]
36.1 References
[1] Florian Kammller, J. W. Sanders (2004). Idempotent Relation in Isabelle/HOL (PDF) (Technical report). TU Berlin. p.
27. 2004-04. Here:p.3
[2] Florian Kammller (2011). Mechanical Analysis of Finite Idempotent Relations. Fundamenta Informaticae. 107. pp.
4365. doi:10.3233/FI-2011-392.
[3] Florian Kammller (2006). Number of idempotent relations on n labeled elements. The On-Line Ecyclopedea of Integer
Sequences (A12137).
[4] Florian Kammller (2008). Counting Idempotent Relations (PDF) (Technical report). TU Berlin. p. 27. 2008-15.
Berstel, Jean; Perrin, Dominique; Reutenauer, Christophe (2010). Codes and automata. Encyclopedia of
Mathematics and its Applications. 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 330. ISBN 978-0-521-
88831-8. Zbl 1187.94001.
127
Chapter 37
Intransitivity
This article is about intransitivity in mathematics. For other uses, see Intransitive (disambiguation).
In mathematics, intransitivity (sometimes called nontransitivity) is a property of binary relations that are not
transitive relations. This may include any relation that is not transitive, or the stronger property of antitransitiv-
ity, which describes a relation that is never transitive.
37.1 Intransitivity
A relation is transitive if, whenever it relates some A to some B, and that B to some C, it also relates that A to that C.
Some authors call a relation intransitive if it is not transitive, i.e. (if the relation in question is named R )
For instance, in the food chain, wolves feed on deer, and deer feed on grass, but wolves do not feed on grass.[1] Thus,
the feed on relation among life forms is intransitive, in this sense.
Another example that does not involve preference loops arises in freemasonry: in some instances lodge A recognizes
lodge B, and lodge B recognizes lodge C, but lodge A does not recognize lodge C. Thus the recognition relation
among Masonic lodges is intransitive.
37.2 Antitransitivity
Often the term intransitive is used to refer to the stronger property of antitransitivity.
We just saw that the feed on relation is not transitive, but it still contains some transitivity: for instance: humans feed
on rabbits, rabbits feed on carrots, and humans also feed on carrots.
A relation is antitransitive if this never occurs at all, i.e.,
128
37.3. CYCLES 129
37.3 Cycles
The term intransitivity is often used when speaking of scenarios in which a relation describes the relative preferences
between pairs of options, and weighing several options produces a loop of preference:
A is preferred to B
B is preferred to C
C is preferred to A
Rock, paper, scissors; Nontransitive dice; and Penneys game are examples. Real combative relations of competing
species [4] and strategies of individual animals [5] can be cyclic as well.
Assuming no option is preferred to itself i.e. the relation is irreexive, a preference relation with a loop is not transitive.
For if it is, each option in the loop is preferred to each option, including itself. This can be illustrated for this example
of a loop among A, B, and C. Assume the relation is transitive. Then, since A is preferred to B and B is preferred to
C, also A is preferred to C. But then, since C is preferred to A, also A is preferred to A.
Therefore such a preference loop (or "cycle") is known as an intransitivity.
Notice that a cycle is neither necessary nor sucient for a binary relation to be not transitive. For example, an
equivalence relation possesses cycles but is transitive. Now, consider the relation is an enemy of and suppose that
the relation is symmetric and satises the condition that for any country, any enemy of an enemy of the country is
not itself an enemy of the country. This is an example of an antitransitive relation that does not have any cycles. In
particular, by virtue of being antitransitive the relation is not transitive.
Finally, let us work with the example of rock, paper, scissors, calling the three options A, B, and C. Now, the relation
over A, B, and C is defeats and the standard rules of the game are such that A defeats B, B defeats C, and C defeats
A. Furthermore, it is also true that B does not defeat A, C does not defeat B, and A does not defeat C. Finally, it is
also true that no option defeats itself. This information can be depicted in a table:
The rst argument of the relation is a row and the second one is a column. Ones indicate the relation holds, zero
indicates that it does not hold. Now, notice that the following statement is true for any pair of elements x and y drawn
(with replacement) from the set {A, B, C}: If x defeats y, and y defeats z, then x does not defeat z. Hence the relation
is antitransitive.
Thus, a cycle is neither necessary nor sucient for a binary relation to be antitransitive.
37.5 Likelihood
It has been suggested that Condorcet voting tends to eliminate intransitive loops when large numbers of voters
participate because the overall assessment criteria for voters balances out. For instance, voters may prefer candidates
on several dierent units of measure such as by order of social consciousness or by order of most scally conservative.
In such cases intransitivity reduces to a broader equation of numbers of people and the weights of their units of
measure in assessing candidates.
130 CHAPTER 37. INTRANSITIVITY
Such as:
30% favor 60/40 weighting between social consciousness and scal conservatism
50% favor 50/50 weighting between social consciousness and scal conservatism
20% favor a 40/60 weighting between social consciousness and scal conservatism
While each voter may not assess the units of measure identically, the trend then becomes a single vector on which
the consensus agrees is a preferred balance of candidate criteria.
37.6 References
[1] Wolves do in fact eat grass see Engel, Cindy (2003). Wild Health: Lessons in Natural Wellness from the Animal Kingdom
(paperback ed.). Houghton Miin. p. 141. ISBN 0-618-34068-8..
[3] IntransitiveRelation
[4] Kerr B., Riley M.A., Feldman M.W., & Bohannan B.J.M. (2002). Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game
of rockpaperscissors. Nature. 418(171174)
[5] Leutwyler, K. (2000). Mating Lizards Play a Game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. Scientic American.
Inverse relation
In mathematics, the inverse relation of a binary relation is the relation that occurs when the order of the elements is
switched in the relation. For example, the inverse of the relation 'child of' is the relation 'parent of'. In formal terms,
if X and Y are sets and L X Y is a relation from X to Y, then L1 is the relation dened so that y L1 x if and only
if x L y. In set-builder notation, L1 = {(y, x) Y X | (x, y) L}.
The notation is analogous with that for an inverse function. Although many functions do not have an inverse, every
relation does have a unique inverse. Despite the notation and terminology, the inverse relation is not an inverse in
the sense of group inverse. However, the unary operation that maps a relation to the inverse relation is an involution,
so it induces the structure of a semigroup with involution on the binary relations on a set, or, more generally, induces
a dagger category on the category of relations as detailed below. As a unary operation, taking the inverse (some-
times called inversion) commutes with the order-related operations of relation algebra, i.e., it commutes with union,
intersection, complement etc.
The inverse relation is also called the converse relation or transpose relation the latter in view of its similarity
with the transpose of a matrix.[1] It has also been called the opposite or dual of the original relation.[2] Other notations
for the inverse relation include LC , LT , L~ or L or L or L .
38.1 Examples
For usual (maybe strict or partial) order relations, the converse is the naively expected opposite order, e.g. 1 =
, <1 = > , etc.
A function is invertible if and only if its inverse relation is a function, in which case the inverse relation is the inverse
function.
The inverse relation of a function f : X Y is the relation f 1 : Y X dened by graph f 1 = {(y, x) | y =
f (x)} .
This is not necessarily a function: One necessary condition is that f be injective, since else f 1 is multi-valued. This
condition is sucient for f 1 being a partial function, and it is clear that f 1 then is a (total) function if and only if
f is surjective. In that case, i.e. if f is bijective, f 1 may be called the inverse function of f.
For example, the function f (x) = 2x + 2 has the inverse function f 1 (x) = x/2 1 .
131
132 CHAPTER 38. INVERSE RELATION
38.2 Properties
In the monoid of binary endorelations on a set (with the binary operation on relations being the composition of
relations), the inverse relation does not satisfy the denition of an inverse from group theory, i.e. if L is an arbitrary
relation on X, then L L1 does not equal the identity relation on X in general. The inverse relation does satisfy the
(weaker) axioms of a semigroup with involution: (L1 )1 = L and (L R)1 = R1 L1 .[3]
Since one may generally consider relations between dierent sets (which form a category rather than a monoid,
namely the category of relations Rel), in this context the inverse relation conforms to the axioms of a dagger category
(aka category with involution).[3] A relation equal to its inverse is a symmetric relation; in the language of dagger
categories, it is self-adjoint.
Furthermore, the semigroup of endorelations on a set is also a partially ordered structure (with inclusion of relations
as sets), and actually an involutive quantale. Similarly, the category of heterogenous relations, Rel is also an ordered
category.[3]
In relation algebra (which is an abstraction of the properties of the algebra of endorelations on a set), inversion (the
operation of taking the inverse relation) commutes with other binary operations of union and intersection. Inversion
also commutes with unary operation of complementation as well as with taking suprema and inma. Inversion is also
compatible with the ordering of relations by inclusion.[1]
If a relation is reexive, irreexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, asymmetric, transitive, total, trichotomous, a partial
order, total order, strict weak order, total preorder (weak order), or an equivalence relation, its inverse is too.
Inverse function
Relation (mathematics)
Transpose graph
38.4 References
[1] Gunther Schmidt; Thomas Strhlein (1993). Relations and Graphs: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Scientists. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 910. ISBN 978-3-642-77970-1.
[2] Celestina Cotti Ferrero; Giovanni Ferrero (2002). Nearrings: Some Developments Linked to Semigroups and Groups.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4613-0267-4.
[3] Joachim Lambek (2001). Relations Old and New. In Ewa Orlowska, Andrzej Szalas. Relational Methods for Computer
Science Applications. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 135146. ISBN 978-3-7908-1365-4.
In mathematics, the inverse trigonometric functions (occasionally also called arcus functions,[1][2][3][4][5] an-
titrigonometric functions[6] or cyclometric functions[7][8][9] ) are the inverse functions of the trigonometric func-
tions (with suitably restricted domains). Specically, they are the inverses of the sine, cosine, tangent, cotangent,
secant, and cosecant functions, and are used to obtain an angle from any of the angles trigonometric ratios. Inverse
trigonometric functions are widely used in engineering, navigation, physics, and geometry.
39.1 Notation
There are several notations used for the inverse trigonometric functions.
The most common convention is to name inverse trigonometric functions using an arc- prex, e.g., arcsin(x), arccos(x),
arctan(x), etc.[6] This convention is used throughout the article. When measuring in radians, an angle of radians
will correspond to an arc whose length is r, where r is the radius of the circle. Thus, in the unit circle, the arc
whose cosine is x is the same as the angle whose cosine is x, because the length of the arc of the circle in radii is
the same as the measurement of the angle in radians.[10] Similarly, in computer programming languages the inverse
trigonometric functions are usually called asin, acos, atan.
The notations sin1 (x), cos1 (x), tan1 (x), etc., as introduced by John Herschel in 1813,[11][12] are often used as
well in English[6] sources, but this convention logically conicts with the common semantics for expressions like
sin2 (x), which refer to numeric power rather than function composition, and therefore may result in confusion between
multiplicative inverse and compositional inverse. The confusion is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that each of the
reciprocal trigonometric functions has its own namefor example, (cos(x))1 = sec(x). Nevertheless, certain authors
advise against using it for its ambiguity.[6][13]
Another convention used by a few authors[14] is to use a majuscule (capital/upper-case) rst letter along with a 1
superscript, e.g., Sin1 (x), Cos1 (x), Tan1 (x), etc., which avoids confusing them with the multiplicative inverse,
which should be represented by sin1 (x), cos1 (x), etc.
Since none of the six trigonometric functions are one-to-one, they are restricted in order to have inverse functions.
Therefore the ranges of the inverse functions are proper subsets of the domains of the original functions
For example, using function in the sense of multivalued functions, just as the square root function y = x could be
dened from y2 = x, the function y = arcsin(x) is dened so that sin(y) = x. For a given real number x, with 1 x
1, there are multiple (in fact, countably innitely many) numbers y such that sin(y) = x; for example, sin(0) = 0,
but also sin() = 0, sin(2) = 0, etc. When only one value is desired, the function may be restricted to its principal
branch. With this restriction, for each x in the domain the expression arcsin(x) will evaluate only to a single value,
called its principal value. These properties apply to all the inverse trigonometric functions.
133
134 CHAPTER 39. INVERSE TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS
Trigonometric functions of inverse trigonometric functions are tabulated below. A quick way to derive them is by
considering the geometry of a right-angled triangle, with one side of length 1, and another side of length x (any real
number between 0 and 1), then applying the Pythagorean theorem and denitions of the trigonometric ratios. Purely
algebraic derivations are longer.
Complementary angles:
arccos(x) = arcsin(x)
2
arccot(x) = arctan(x)
2
arccsc(x) = arcsec(x)
2
Negative arguments:
arcsin(x) = arcsin(x)
arccos(x) = arccos(x)
arctan(x) = arctan(x)
arccot(x) = arccot(x)
arcsec(x) = arcsec(x)
arccsc(x) = arccsc(x)
Reciprocal arguments:
39.2. BASIC PROPERTIES 135
( )
1
arccos = arcsec(x)
x
( )
1
arcsin = arccsc(x)
x
( )
1
arctan = arctan(x) = arccot(x) , if x > 0
x 2
( )
1
arctan = arctan(x) = arccot(x) , if x < 0
x 2
( )
1
arccot = arccot(x) = arctan(x) , if x > 0
x 2
( )
1 3
arccot = arccot(x) = + arctan(x) , if x < 0
x 2
( )
1
arcsec = arccos(x)
x
( )
1
arccsc = arcsin(x)
x
( )
arccos(x) = arcsin 1 x2 , if 0 x 1
1 ( )
arccos(x) = arccos 2x2 1 , if 0 x 1
2
1 ( )
arcsin(x) = arccos 1 2x2 , if 0 x 1
2 ( )
x
arctan(x) = arcsin
x2 + 1
Whenever the square root of a complex number is used here, we choose the root with the positive real part (or positive
imaginary part if the square was negative real).
( ) sin()
From the half-angle formula, tan 2 = 1+cos() , we get:
( )
x
arcsin(x) = 2 arctan
1 + 1 x2
( )
1 x2
arccos(x) = 2 arctan , if 1 < x +1
1+x
( )
x
arctan(x) = 2 arctan
1 + 1 + x2
tan() + tan()
tan( + ) = ,
1 tan() tan()
136 CHAPTER 39. INVERSE TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS
by letting
= arctan(u) , = arctan(v) .
39.3 In calculus
d 1
arcsin(z) = ; z = 1, +1
dz 1 z2
d 1
arccos(z) = ; z = 1, +1
dz 1 z2
d 1
arctan(z) = ; z = i, +i
dz 1 + z2
d 1
arccot(z) = ; z = i, +i
dz 1 + z2
d 1
arcsec(z) = ; z = 1, 0, +1
dz z 1 1
2
z2
d 1
arccsc(z) = ; z = 1, 0, +1
dz z2 1 1
z2
d 1
arcsec(x) = ; |x| > 1
dx |x| x2 1
d 1
arccsc(x) = ; |x| > 1
dx |x| x2 1
d arcsin(x) d d 1 1 1
= = = = =
dx d sin() cos()d cos()
1 sin2 () 1 x2
Integrating the derivative and xing the value at one point gives an expression for the inverse trigonometric function
as a denite integral:
39.3. IN CALCULUS 137
x
1
arcsin(x) = dz , |x| 1
0 1 z2
1
1
arccos(x) = dz , |x| 1
1 z2
xx
1
arctan(x) = 2+1
dz ,
z
0
1
arccot(x) = 2+1
dz ,
x z
x 1
1 1
arcsec(x) = dz = + dz , x1
z z 12 z z2 1
1 x x
1 1
arccsc(x) = dz = dz , x1
x z z 12
z z 1
2
When x equals 1, the integrals with limited domains are improper integrals, but still well-dened.
( ) 3 ( ) ( )
1 z 1 3 z5 1 3 5 z7
arcsin(z) = z + + + +
2 3 24 5 246 7
(2n 1)!! z 2n+1
=
n=0
(2n)!! 2n + 1
(2n)
2n+1
n z
= ; |z| 1
n=0
4n (2n + 1)
z3 z5 z7 (1)n z 2n+1
arctan(z) = z + + = ; |z| 1 z = i, i
3 5 7 n=0
2n + 1
Series for the other inverse trigonometric functions can be given in terms of these according to the relationships given
above. For example, arccos(x) = /2 arcsin(x) , arccsc(x) = arcsin(1/x) , and so on. Another series is given
by:[15]
( ( x ))2
x2n
2 arcsin = ( )
2 n=1
n2 2n
n
Leonhard Euler found a more ecient series for the arctangent, which is:
n
z 2kz 2
arctan(z) = 2
.
1 + z n=0 (2k + 1)(1 + z 2 )
k=1
(Notice that the term in the sum for n = 0 is the empty product which is 1.)
Alternatively, this can be expressed:
22n (n!)2 z 2n+1
arctan(z) =
n=0
(2n + 1)! (1 + z 2 )n+1
138 CHAPTER 39. INVERSE TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS
Two alternatives to the power series for arctangent are these generalized continued fractions:
z z
arctan(z) = =
(1z)2 (1z)2
1+ 1+
(3z)2 (2z)2
3 1z 2 + 3+
(5z)2 (3z)2
5 3z 2 + 5+
(7z)2 (4z)2
7 5z 2 + 7+
. .
9 7z 2 + . . 9 + ..
The second of these is valid in the cut complex plane. There are two cuts, from i to the point at innity, going down
the imaginary axis, and from i to the point at innity, going up the same axis. It works best for real numbers running
from 1 to 1. The partial denominators are the odd natural numbers, and the partial numerators (after the rst) are
just (nz)2 , with each perfect square appearing once. The rst was developed by Leonhard Euler; the second by Carl
Friedrich Gauss utilizing the Gaussian hypergeometric series.
arcsin(z) dz = z arcsin(z) + 1 z2 + C
arccos(z) dz = z arccos(z) 1 z2 + C
1 ( )
arctan(z) dz = z arctan(z) ln 1 + z 2 + C
2
1 ( )
arccot(z) dz = z arccot(z) + ln 1 + z 2 + C
2
[ ( )]
z2 1
arcsec(z) dz = z arcsec(z) ln z 1 + +C
z2
[ ( )]
z2 1
arccsc(z) dz = z arccsc(z) + ln z 1 + +C
z2
For real x 1:
( )
arcsec(x) dx = x arcsec(x) ln x + x2 1 + C
( )
arccsc(x) dx = x arccsc(x) + ln x + x2 1 + C
( )
arcsec(x) dx = x arcsec(x) sgn(x) ln x + x2 1 + C
( )
arccsc(x) dx = x arccsc(x) + sgn(x) ln x + x2 1 + C
The absolute value is necessary to compensate for both negative and positive values of the arcsecant and arccosecant
functions. The signum function is also necessary due to the absolute values in the derivatives of the two functions,
which create two dierent solutions for positive and negative values of x. These can be further simplied using the
logarithmic denitions of the inverse hyperbolic functions:
39.4. EXTENSION TO COMPLEX PLANE 139
The absolute value in the argument of the arcosh function creates a negative half of its graph, making it identical to
the signum logarithmic function shown above.
All of these antiderivatives can be derived using integration by parts and the simple derivative forms shown above.
Example
Using u dv = uv v du (i.e. integration by parts), set
u = arcsin(x) dv = dx
dx
du = v=x
1 x2
Then
x
arcsin(x) dx = x arcsin(x) dx,
1 x2
which by a simple substitution yields the nal result:
arcsin(x) dx = x arcsin(x) + 1 x2 + C
z
dx
arctan(z) = z = i, +i
0 1 + x2
where the part of the imaginary axis which does not lie strictly between i and +i is the cut between the principal
sheet and other sheets;
( )
z
arcsin(z) = arctan z = 1, +1
1 z2
where (the square-root function has its cut along the negative real axis and) the part of the real axis which does not
lie strictly between 1 and +1 is the cut between the principal sheet of arcsin and other sheets;
arccos(z) = arcsin(z) z = 1, +1
2
which has the same cut as arcsin;
arccot(z) = arctan(z) z = i, i
2
140 CHAPTER 39. INVERSE TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS
( )
1
arcsec(z) = arccos z = 1, 0, +1
z
where the part of the real axis between 1 and +1 inclusive is the cut between the principal sheet of arcsec and other
sheets;
( )
1
arccsc(z) = arcsin z = 1, 0, +1
z
( ) ( )
1
arcsin(z) = i ln iz + 1 z2 = arccsc
z
( ) ( ) ( )
1
arccos(z) = i ln z + z 2 1 = + i ln iz + 1 z 2 = arcsin(z) = arcsec
2 2 z
( )
1
arctan(z) = 1
2 i [ln (1 iz) ln (1 + iz)] = arccot
z
[ ( ) ( )] ( )
i i 1
arccot(z) = 1
2i ln 1 ln 1 + = arctan
z z z
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1 i 1
arcsec(z) = i ln 2
1+ = i ln 1 2 + + = arccsc(z) = arccos
z z z z 2 2 z
( ) ( )
1 i 1
arccsc(z) = i ln 1 2 + = arcsin
z z z
Elementary proofs of these relations proceed via expansion to exponential forms of the trigonometric functions.
Example proof
sin() = z
= arcsin(z)
Using the exponential denition of sine, one obtains
ei ei
z=
2i
Let
= ei
39.5. APPLICATIONS 141
Solving for
1
z=
2i
1
2iz =
1
2iz =0
2 2iz 1 = 0
= iz 1 z 2 = ei
( )
i = ln iz 1 z 2
( )
= i ln iz 1 z 2
( )
= arcsin(z) = i ln iz + 1 z 2
39.5 Applications
Each of the trigonometric functions is periodic in the real part of its argument, running through all its values twice in
each interval of 2. Sine and cosecant begin their period at 2k /2 (where k is an integer), nish it at 2k + /2,
and then reverse themselves over 2k + /2 to 2k + 3/2. Cosine and secant begin their period at 2k, nish it at
2k + , and then reverse themselves over 2k + to 2k + 2. Tangent begins its period at 2k /2, nishes it at
2k + /2, and then repeats it (forward) over 2k + /2 to 2k + 3/2. Cotangent begins its period at 2k, nishes
it at 2k + , and then repeats it (forward) over 2k + to 2k + 2.
This periodicity is reected in the general inverses where k is some integer:
tan(y) = x y = arctan(x) + k
cot(y) = x y = arccot(x) + k
Inverse trigonometric functions are useful when trying to determine the remaining two angles of a right triangle when
the lengths of the sides of the triangle are known. Recalling the right-triangle denitions of sine, for example, it
follows that
( )
opposite
= arcsin .
hypotenuse
Often, the hypotenuse is unknown and would need to be calculated before using arcsine or arccosine using the
Pythagorean Theorem: a2 + b2 = h2 where h is the length of the hypotenuse. Arctangent comes in handy in
this situation, as the length of the hypotenuse is not needed.
( )
opposite
= arctan .
adjacent
For example, suppose a roof drops 8 feet as it runs out 20 feet. The roof makes an angle with the horizontal, where
may be computed as follows:
( ) ( ) ( )
opposite rise 8
= arctan = arctan = arctan 21.8 .
adjacent run 20
The two-argument atan2 function computes the arctangent of y / x given y and x, but with a range of (, ]. In
other words, atan2(y, x) is the angle between the positive x-axis of a plane and the point (x, y) on it, with positive
sign for counter-clockwise angles (upper half-plane, y > 0), and negative sign for clockwise angles (lower half-plane,
y < 0). It was rst introduced in many computer programming languages, but it is now also common in other elds
of science and engineering.
In terms of the standard arctan function, that is with range of (/2, /2), it can be expressed as follows:
y
arctan( x ) x>0
arctan( xy ) + y0, x<0
arctan( y ) y<0, x<0
atan2(y, x) = x
y>0, x=0
2
2
y<0, x=0
undened y=0, x=0
It also equals the principal value of the argument of the complex number x + iy.
This function may also be dened using the tangent half-angle formulae as follows:
( )
y
atan2(y, x) = 2 arctan
x2 + y 2 + x
provided that either x > 0 or y 0. However this fails if given x 0 and y = 0 so the expression is unsuitable for
computational use.
The above argument order (y, x) seems to be the most common, and in particular is used in ISO standards such as
the C programming language, but a few authors may use the opposite convention (x, y) so some caution is warranted.
These variations are detailed at atan2.
39.6. SEE ALSO 143
In many applications the solution y of the equation x = tan(y) is to come as close as possible to a given value
< < . The adequate solution is produced by the parameter modied arctangent function
( )
arctan(x)
y = arctan (x) := arctan(x) + rni .
Numerical accuracy
For angles near 0 and , arccosine is ill-conditioned and will thus calculate the angle with reduced accuracy in a
computer implementation (due to the limited number of digits).[16] Similarly, arcsine is inaccurate for angles near
/2 and /2.
Inverse versine
Trigonometric function
39.7 References
[1] Taczanowski, Stefan (1978-10-01). On the optimization of some geometric parameters in 14 MeV neutron activation
analysis. Nuclear Instruments and Methods. ScienceDirect. 155 (3): 543546. Retrieved 2017-07-26.
[2] Hazewinkel, Michiel (1994) [1987]. Encyclopaedia of Mathematics (unabridged reprint ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers
/ Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-155608010-4. ISBN 1556080107.
[3] Ebner, Dieter (2005-07-25). Preparatory Course in Mathematics (PDF) (6 ed.). Department of Physics, University of
Konstanz. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-07-26. Retrieved 2017-07-26.
[4] Mejlbro, Leif (2010-11-11). Stability, Riemann Surfaces, Conformal Mappings - Complex Functions Theory (PDF) (1 ed.).
Ventus Publishing ApS / Bookboon. ISBN 978-87-7681-702-2. ISBN 87-7681-702-4. Archived (PDF) from the original
on 2017-07-26. Retrieved 2017-07-26.
[5] Durn, Mario (2012). Mathematical methods for wave propagation in science and engineering. 1: Fundamentals (1 ed.).
Ediciones UC. p. 88. ISBN 978-956141314-6. ISBN 956141314-0.
[6] Hall, Arthur Graham; Frink, Fred Goodrich (January 1909). Chapter II. The Acute Angle [14] Inverse trigonometric
functions. Written at Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Trigonometry. Part I: Plane Trigonometry. New York, USA: Henry
Holt and Company / Norwood Press / J. S. Cushing Co. - Berwick & Smith Co., Norwood, Massachusetts, USA. p.
15. Retrieved 2017-08-12. [] = arcsin m: It is frequently read "arc-sine m" or "anti-sine m, since two mutually
inverse functions are said each to be the anti-function of the other. [] A similar symbolic relation holds for the other
trigonometric functions. [] This notation is universally used in Europe and is fast gaining ground in this country. A less
desirable symbol, = sin1 m, is still found in English and American texts. The notation = inv sin m is perhaps better
still on account of its general applicability. []
[7] Klein, Christian Felix (1924) [1902]. Elementarmathematik vom hheren Standpunkt aus: Arithmetik, Algebra, Analysis
(in German). 1 (3rd ed.). Berlin: J. Springer.
144 CHAPTER 39. INVERSE TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS
[8] Klein, Christian Felix (2004) [1932]. Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Arithmetic, Algebra, Analysis.
Translated by Hedrick, E. R.; Noble, C. A. (Translation of 3rd German ed.). Dover Publications, Inc. / The Macmillan
Company. ISBN 978-0-48643480-3. ISBN 0-48643480-X. Retrieved 2017-08-13.
[9] Drrie, Heinrich (1965). Triumph der Mathematik. Translated by Antin, David. Dover Publications. p. 69. ISBN 0-486-
61348-8.
[10] Beach, Frederick Converse; Rines, George Edwin, eds. (1912). Inverse trigonometric functions. The Americana: a
universal reference library. 21.
[11] Cajori, Florian (1919). A History of Mathematics (2 ed.). New York, USA: The Macmillan Company. p. 272.
[12] Herschel, John Frederick William (1813). On a remarkable Application of Cotess Theorem. Philosophical Transactions.
Royal Society, London. 103 (1): 8.
[13] Korn, Grandino Arthur; Korn, Theresa M. (2000) [1961]. 21.2.4. Inverse Trigonometric Functions. Mathematical
handbook for scientists and engineers: Denitions, theorems, and formulars for reference and review (3 ed.). Mineola, New
York, USA: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 811. ISBN 978-0-486-41147-7.
[14] Bhatti, Sanaullah; Nawab-ud-Din; Ahmed, Bashir; Yousuf, S. M.; Taheem, Allah Bukhsh (1999). Dierentiation of
Trigonometric, Logarithmic and Exponential Functions. In Ellahi, Mohammad Maqbool; Dar, Karamat Hussain; Hussain,
Faheem. Calculus and Analytic Geometry (1 ed.). Lahore: Punjab Textbook Board. p. 140.
[15] Borwein, Jonathan; Bailey, David; Gingersohn, Roland (2004). Experimentation in Mathematics: Computational Paths to
Discovery (1 ed.). Wellesley, MA, USA: :A. K. Peters. p. 51. ISBN 1-56881-136-5.
[16] Gade, Kenneth (2010). A non-singular horizontal position representation (PDF). The Journal of Navigation. Cambridge
University Press. 63 (3): 395417. doi:10.1017/S0373463309990415.
The usual principal values of the arctan(x) and arccot(x) functions graphed on the cartesian plane.
Principal values of the arcsec(x) and arccsc(x) functions graphed on the cartesian plane.
39.8. EXTERNAL LINKS 147
A right triangle.
Chapter 40
Near sets
In mathematics, near sets are either spatially close or descriptively close. Spatially close sets have nonempty intersection.
In other words, spatially close sets are not disjoint sets, since they always have at least one element in common. De-
scriptively close sets contain elements that have matching descriptions. Such sets can be either disjoint or non-disjoint
sets. Spatially near sets are also descriptively near sets.
The underlying assumption with descriptively close sets is that such sets contain elements that have location and
measurable features such as colour and frequency of occurrence. The description of the element of a set is dened
by a feature vector. Comparison of feature vectors provides a basis for measuring the closeness of descriptively near
148
149
sets. Near set theory provides a formal basis for the observation, comparison, and classication of elements in sets
based on their closeness, either spatially or descriptively. Near sets oer a framework for solving problems based on
human perception that arise in areas such as image processing, computer vision as well as engineering and science
problems.
Near sets have a variety of applications in areas such as topology[37] , pattern detection and classication[50] , abstract al-
gebra[51] , mathematics in computer science[38] , and solving a variety of problems based on human perception[42][82][47][52][56]
that arise in areas such as image analysis[54][14][46][17][18] , image processing[40] , face recognition[13] , ethology[64] , as
well as engineering and science problems[55][64][42][19][17][18] . From the beginning, descriptively near sets have proved
to be useful in applications of topology[37] , and visual pattern recognition [50] , spanning a broad spectrum of applica-
tions that include camouage detection, micropaleontology, handwriting forgery detection, biomedical image analy-
sis, content-based image retrieval, population dynamics, quotient topology, textile design, visual merchandising, and
topological psychology.
As an illustration of the degree of descriptive nearness between two sets, consider an example of the Henry colour
model for varying degrees of nearness between sets of picture elements in pictures (see, e.g.,[17] 4.3). The two pairs
of ovals in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 contain coloured segments. Each segment in the gures corresponds to an equivalence
class where all pixels in the class have similar descriptions, i.e., picture elements with similar colours. The ovals in
Fig.1 are closer to each other descriptively than the ovals in Fig. 2.
150 CHAPTER 40. NEAR SETS
40.1 History
It has been observed that the simple concept of nearness unies various concepts of topological structures[20] inas-
much as the category Near of all nearness spaces and nearness preserving maps contains categories sTop (symmetric
topological spaces and continuous maps[3] ), Prox (proximity spaces and -maps[8][67] ), Unif (uniform spaces and uni-
formly continuous maps[81][77] ) and Cont (contiguity spaces and contiguity maps[24] ) as embedded full subcategories[20][59] .
The categories AN ear and AM er are shown to be full supercategories of various well-known categories, in-
cluding the category sT op of symmetric topological spaces and continuous maps, and the category M et of
extended metric spaces and nonexpansive maps. The notation A , B reads category A is embedded in category B
. The categories AM er and AN ear are supercategories for a variety of familiar categories[76] shown in Fig. 3.
Let AN ear denote the category of all -approach nearness spaces and contractions, and let AM er denote the
category of all -approach merotopic spaces and contractions.
Figure 3. Supercats
Among these familiar categories is sT op , the symmetric form of T op (see category of topological spaces), the cat-
egory with objects that are topological spaces and morphisms that are continuous maps between them[1][32] . M et
with objects that are extended metric spaces is a subcategory of AP (having objects -approach spaces and con-
tractions) (see also[57][75] ). Let X , Y be extended pseudometrics on nonempty sets X, Y , respectively. The map
f : (X, X ) (Y, Y ) is a contraction if and only if f : (X, DX ) (Y, DY ) is a contraction. For
nonempty subsets A, B 2X , the distance function D : 2X 2X [0, ] is dened by
{
inf {(a, b) : a A, b B}, ifA and Bempty not are ,
D (A, B) =
, ifA or Bempty is .
Thus AP is embedded as a full subcategory in AN ear by the functor F : AP AN ear dened by
F ((X, )) = (X, D ) and F (f ) = f . Then f : (X, X ) (Y, Y ) is a contraction if and only if f :
40.1. HISTORY 151
The notions of near and far[A] in mathematics can be traced back to works by Johann Benedict Listing and Felix
Hausdor. The related notions of resemblance and similarity can be traced back to J.H. Poincar, who introduced
sets of similar sensations (nascent tolerance classes) to represent the results of G.T. Fechners sensation sensitivity
experiments[10] and a framework for the study of resemblance in representative spaces as models of what he termed
physical continua[63][60][61] . The elements of a physical continuum (pc) are sets of sensations. The notion of a pc
and various representative spaces (tactile, visual, motor spaces) were introduced by Poincar in an 1894 article on
the mathematical continuum[63] , an 1895 article on space and geometry[60] and a compendious 1902 book on science
152 CHAPTER 40. NEAR SETS
and hypothesis[61] followed by a number of elaborations, e.g.,[62] . The 1893 and 1895 articles on continua (Pt. 1,
ch. II) as well as representative spaces and geometry (Pt. 2, ch IV) are included as chapters in[61] . Later, F. Riesz
introduced the concept of proximity or nearness of pairs of sets at the International Congress of Mathematicians
(ICM) in 1908[65] .
During the 1960s, E.C. Zeeman introduced tolerance spaces in modelling visual perception[83] . A.B. Sossinsky
observed in 1986[71] that the main idea underlying tolerance space theory comes from Poincar, especially[60] . In
2002, Z. Pawlak and J. Peters[B] considered an informal approach to the perception of the nearness of physical objects
such as snowakes that was not limited to spatial nearness. In 2006, a formal approach to the descriptive nearness of
objects was considered by J. Peters, A. Skowron and J. Stepaniuk[C] in the context of proximity spaces[39][33][35][21] .
In 2007, descriptively near sets were introduced by J. Peters[D][E] followed by the introduction of tolerance near
sets[41][45] . Recently, the study of descriptively near sets has led to algebraic[22][51] , topological and proximity space[37]
foundations of such sets.
i.e. cl(A) is the set of all points x in X that are close to A ( D(x, A) is the Hausdor distance (see 22, p. 128,
40.5. VISUALIZATION OF EF-AXIOM 153
in[15] ) between x and the set A and d(x, a) = |x a| (standard distance)). A standard proximity relation is dened
by
{ }
= (A, B) 2X 2X : cl(A) cl(B) = .
Whenever sets A and B have no points in common, the sets are farfrom each other (denoted A B ).
The following EF-proximity[G] space axioms are given by Jurij Michailov Smirnov[67] based on what Vadim Arsenye-
vi Efremovi introduced during the rst half of the 1930s[8] . Let A, B, E 2X .
EF.2 A B is close to E , if and only if, at least one of the sets A or B is close to E .
EF.3 Two points are close, if and only if, they are the same point.
EF.5 For any two sets A and B which are far from each other, there exists C, D 2X , C D = X , such that A
is far from C and B is far from D (Efremovi-axiom).
The pair (X, ) is called an EF-proximity space. In this context, a space is a set with some added structure. With
a proximity space X , the structure of X is induced by the EF-proximity relation . In a proximity space X , the
closure of A in X coincides with the intersection of all closed sets that contain A .
Theorem 1[67] The closure of any set A in the proximity space X is the set of points x X that are close to A .
A B,
B C,
D = C c,
X = D C,
A D, hence, we can write
A B A C and B D, for some C, D in X so that C D = X.
X
Cc C
B
A
To obtain a descriptive proximity relation (denoted by ), one rst chooses a set of probe functions. Let Q : 2X
n n
2R be a mapping on a subset of 2X into a subset of 2R . For example, let A, B 2X and Q(A), Q(B) denote
sets of descriptions of points in A, B , respectively. That is,
Q(A) = {(a) : a A} ,
Q(B) = {(b) : b B} .
The expression A B reads A is descriptively near B . Similarly, A B reads A is descriptively far from B . The
descriptive proximity of A and B is dened by
A B Q(cl(A)) Q(cl(B)) = .
A B = {x A B : Q(A) Q(B)} .
That is, x A B is in A B , provided (x) = (a) = (b) for some a A, b B . Observe that A and B
can be disjoint and yet A B can be nonempty. The descriptive proximity relation is dened by
{ }
= (A, B) 2X 2X : cl(A) cl(B) = .
Whenever sets A and B have no points with matching descriptions, the sets are descriptively far from each other
(denoted by A B ).
The binary relation is a descriptive EF-proximity, provided the following axioms are satised for A, B, E X .
40.7. PROXIMAL RELATOR SPACES 155
cl (A) = {x X : (x)Q(cl(A))} .
That is, x X is in the descriptive closure of A , provided the closure of (x) and the closure of Q(cl(A)) have at
least one element in common.
Theorem 2 [50] The descriptive closure of any set A in the descriptive EF-proximity space (X, R ) is the set of
points x X that are descriptively close to A .
Theorem 3 [50] Kuratowski closure of a set A is a subset of the descriptive closure of A in a descriptive EF-proximity
space.
Theorem 4 [49] Let (X, R ) be a proximal relator space, A X . Then cl(A) cl (A) .
Proof Let (x) Q(X \ cl(A)) such that (x) = (a) for some a clA . Consequently, (x) Q(cl (A)) .
Hence, cl(A) cl (A)
In a proximal relator space, EF-proximity leads to the following results for descriptive proximity .
1
A B implies A B .
2
(A B) C implies (A B) C .
3
clA clB implies clA clB .
Proof
156 CHAPTER 40. NEAR SETS
1
A B A B = . For x A B, (x) Q(A) and (x) Q(B) . Consequently, A B .
1 2
3
clA clB implies that clA and clA have at least one point in common. Hence, 1 o 3o .
X
X \E 2 E2
B
E1
A
In a pseudometric proximal relator space X , the neighbourhood of a point x X (denoted by Nx, ), for > 0 , is
dened by
The interior of a set A (denoted by int(A) ) and boundary of A (denoted by bdy(A) ) in a proximal relator space X
are dened by
int(A) = {x X : Nx, A} .
A set A has a natural strong inclusion in a set B associated with [5][6] } (denoted by A B ), provided A intB
, i.e., A X \ intB ( A is far from the complement of intB ). Correspondingly, a set A has a descriptive strong
inclusion in a set B associated with (denoted by A B ), provided Q(A) Q(intB) , i.e., A X \ intB (
Q(A) is far from the complement of intB ).
Let be a descriptive -neighbourhood relation dened by
{ }
= (A, B) 2X 2X : Q(A) Q(intB) .
That is, A B , provided the description of each a A is contained in the set of descriptions of the points b intB
. Now observe that any A, B in the proximal relator space X such that A B have disjoint -neighbourhoods,
i.e.,
Theorem 6 [50] Any two sets descriptively far from each other belong to disjoint descriptive -neighbourhoods in
a descriptive proximity space X .
A consideration of strong containment of a nonempty set in another set leads to the study of hit-and-miss topologies
and the Wijsman topology[2] .
Let R, = R {, } . In other words, a nonempty set equipped with the proximal relator R, has underlying
structure provided by the proximal relator R and provides a basis for the study of tolerance near sets in X that are
near within some tolerance. Sets A, B in a descriptive pseudometric proximal relator space (X, R, ) are tolerance
near sets (i.e., A , B ), provided
D (A, B) < .
The work on similarity by Poincar and Zeeman presage the introduction of near sets[44][43] and research on similarity
relations, e.g.,[79] . In science and engineering, tolerance near sets are a practical application of the study of sets that
are near within some tolerance. A tolerance (0, ] is directly related to the idea of closeness or resemblance
(i.e., being within some tolerance) in comparing objects. By way of application of Poincar's approach in dening
visual spaces and Zeemans approach to tolerance relations, the basic idea is to compare objects such as image patches
in the interior of digital images.
40.10.1 Examples
Simple Example
The following simple example demonstrates the construction of tolerance classes from real data. Consider the 20
objects in the table below with || = 1 .
Observe that each object in a tolerance class satises the condition (x) (y) 2 , and that almost all of the
objects appear in more than one class. Moreover, there would be twenty classes if the indiscernibility relation was
used since there are no two objects with matching descriptions.
Image Processing Example
Figure 7. Example of images that are near each other. (a) and (b) Images from the freely available LeavesDataset (see, e.g.,
www.vision.caltech.edu/archive.html).
The following example provides an example based on digital images. Let a subimage be dened as a small subset of
pixels belonging to a digital image such that the pixels contained in the subimage form a square. Then, let the sets X
and Y respectively represent the subimages obtained from two dierent images, and let O = {X Y } . Finally, let
the description of an object be given by the Green component in the RGB color model. The next step is to nd all
40.11. NEARNESS MEASURE 159
the tolerance classes using the tolerance relation dened in the previous example. Using this information, tolerance
classes can be formed containing objects that have similar (within some small ) values for the Green component
in the RGB colour model. Furthermore, images that are near (similar) to each other should have tolerance classes
divided among both images (instead of a tolerance classes contained solely in one of the images). For example, the
gure accompanying this example shows a subset of the tolerance classes obtained from two leaf images. In this
gure, each tolerance class is assigned a separate colour. As can be seen, the two leaves share similar tolerance
classes. This example highlights a need to measure the degree of nearness of two sets.
Figure 8. Examples of degree of nearness between two sets: (a) High degree of nearness, and (b) Low degree of nearness.
{
1 tN M (A, B), if X and Y are not empty,
DtN M (X, Y ) =
, if X or Y is empty,
where
( )1
min(|C A|, |[C B|)
tN M (A, B) = |C| |C| .
max(|C A|, |C B|)
CH, (Z) CH, (Z)
The details concerning tN M are given in[14][16][17] . The idea behind tN M is that sets that are similar should have
a similar number of objects in each tolerance class. Thus, for each tolerance class obtained from the covering of
Z = X Y , tN M counts the number of objects that belong to X and Y and takes the ratio (as a proper fraction) of
their cardinalities. Furthermore, each ratio is weighted by the total size of the tolerance class (thus giving importance
to the larger classes) and the nal result is normalized by dividing by the sum of all the cardinalities. The range of
tN M is in the interval [0,1], where a value of 1 is obtained if the sets are equivalent (based on object descriptions)
and a value of 0 is obtained if they have no descriptions in common.
As an example of the degree of nearness between two sets, consider gure below in which each image consists of two
sets of objects, X and Y . Each colour in the gures corresponds to a set where all the objects in the class share the
160 CHAPTER 40. NEAR SETS
same description. The idea behind tN M is that the nearness of sets in a perceptual system is based on the cardinality
of tolerance classes that they share. Thus, the sets in left side of the gure are closer (more near) to each other in
terms of their descriptions than the sets in right side of the gure.
The Near set Evaluation and Recognition (NEAR) system, is a system developed to demonstrate practical applications
of near set theory to the problems of image segmentation evaluation and image correspondence. It was motivated
by a need for a freely available software tool that can provide results for research and to generate interest in near
set theory. The system implements a Multiple Document Interface (MDI) where each separate processing task is
performed in its own child frame. The objects (in the near set sense) in this system are subimages of the images being
processed and the probe functions (features) are image processing functions dened on the subimages. The system
was written in C++ and was designed to facilitate the addition of new processing tasks and probe functions. Currently,
the system performs six major tasks, namely, displaying equivalence and tolerance classes for an image, performing
segmentation evaluation, measuring the nearness of two images, performing Content Based Image Retrieval (CBIR),
and displaying the output of processing an image using a specic probe function.
ning the Java Virtual Machine. With respect to the desktop environment, the Proximity System is a cross-platform
Java application for Windows, OSX, and Linux systems, which has been tested on Windows 7 and Debian Linux
using the Sun Java 6 Runtime. In terms of the implementation of the theoretical approaches, both the Android and
the desktop based applications use the same back-end libraries to perform the description-based calculations, where
the only dierences are the user interface and the Android version has less available features due to restrictions on
system resources.
40.15 Notes
1. ^ J.R. Isbell observed that the notions near and far are important in a uniform space. Sets A, B are far
(uniformaly distal), provided the {A, B} is a discrete collection. A nonempty set U is a uniform neighbour-
hood of a set A , provided the complement of U is far from U . See, 33 in [23]
2. ^ The intuition that led to the discovery of descriptively near sets is given in Pawlak, Z.;Peters, J.F. (2002,
2007) Jak blisko (How Near)". Systemy Wspomagania Decyzji I 57 (109)
3. ^ Descriptively near sets are introduced in[48] . The connections between traditional EF-proximity and descrip-
tive EF-proximity are explored in [37] .
162 CHAPTER 40. NEAR SETS
4. ^ Reminiscent of M. Pavels approach, descriptions of members of sets objects are dened relative to vectors
of values obtained from real-valued functions called probes. See, Pavel, M. (1993). Fundamentals of pattern
recognition. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, for the introduction of probe functions considered in the
context of image registration.
5. ^ A non-spatial view of near sets appears in, C.J. Mozzochi, M.S. Gagrat, and S.A. Naimpally, Symmetric
generalized topological structures, Exposition Press, Hicksville, NY, 1976., and, more recently, nearness of
disjoint sets X and Y based on resemblance between pairs of elements x X, y Y (i.e. x and y have
similar feature vectors (x), (y) and the norm (x) (y) p < ) See, e.g.,[43][42][53] .
6. ^ The basic facts about closure of a set were rst pointed out by M. Frchet in[11] , and elaborated by B. Knaster
and C. Kuratowski in[25] .
7. ^ Observe that up to the 1970s, proximity meant EF-proximity, since this is the one that was studied intensively.
The pre-1970 work on proximity spaces is exemplied by the series of papers by J. M. Smirnov during the
rst half of the 1950s[68][67][69][70] , culminating in the compendious collection of results by S.A. Naimpally and
B.D. Warrack[34] . But in view of later developments, there is a need to distinguish between various proximities.
A basic proximity or ech-proximity was introduced by E. ech during the late 1930s (see 25 A.1, pp. 439-
440 in [78] ). The conditions for the non-symmetric case for a proximity were introduced by S. Leader[28] and
for the symmetric case by M.W. Lodato[29][30][31] .
40.16 References
1. ^ Admek, J.; Herrlich, H.; Strecker, G. E. (1990). Abstract and concrete categories. London: Wiley-
Interscience. pp. ix+482.
2. ^ Beer, G. (1993), Topologies on closed and closed convex sets, London, UK: Kluwer Academic Pub., pp.
xi + 340pp. Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. ^ Bentley, H. L.; Colebunders, E.; Vandermissen, E. (2009), A convenient setting for completions and func-
tion spaces, in Mynard, F.; Pearl, E., Contemporary Mathematics, Providence, RI: American Mathematical
Society, pp. 3788 Missing or empty |title= (help)
4. ^ Cameron, P.; Hockingand, J. G.; Naimpally, S. A. (1974). Nearnessa better approach to continuity and
limits. American Mathematical Monthly. 81 (7): 739745. doi:10.2307/2319561.
5. ^ Di Concilio, A. (2008), Action, uniformity and proximity, in Naimpally, S. A.; Di Maio, G., Theory and
Applications of Proximity, Nearness and Uniformity, Seconda Universit di Napoli, Napoli: Prentice-Hall, pp.
7188 Missing or empty |title= (help)
6. ^ a b Di Concilio, A. (2009). Proximity: A powerful tool in extension theory, function spaces, hyperspaces,
boolean algebras and point-free geometry. Contemporary Mathematics. 486: 89114. doi:10.1090/conm/486/09508.
7. ^ Devi, R.; Selvakumar, A.; Vigneshwaran, M. (2010). " (I, ) -generalized semi-closed sets in topological
spaces. FILOMAT. 24 (1): 97100. doi:10.2298/l1001097d.
8. ^ a b c Efremovi, V. A. (1952). The geometry of proximity I (in Russian)". Mat. Sb. (N.S.). 31 (73):
189200.
9. ^ Peters, J. F. (2008). A note on a-open sets and e -sets. FILOMAT. 22 (1): 8996.
10. ^ Fechner, G. T. (1966). Elements of Psychophysics, vol. I. London, UK: Hold, Rinehart & Winston. pp. H.
E. Adlers trans. of Elemente der Psychophysik, 1860.
11. ^ Frchet, M. (1906). Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionnel. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo. 22: 174.
doi:10.1007/bf03018603.
12. ^ Grtzer, G.; Wenzel, G. H. (1989). Tolerances, covering systems, and the axiom of choice. Archivum
Mathematicum. 25 (12): 2734.
13. ^ Gupta, S.; Patnaik, K. (2008). Enhancing performance of face recognition systems by using near set ap-
proach for selecting facial features. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 4 (5): 433
441.
40.16. REFERENCES 163
14. ^ a b Hassanien, A. E.; Abraham, A.; Peters, J. F.; Schaefer, G.; Henry, C. (2009). Rough sets and near sets in
medical imaging: A review, IEEE. Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine. 13 (6): 955968.
doi:10.1109/TITB.2009.2017017.
15. ^ Hausdor, F. (1914). Grundzuge der mengenlehre. Leipzig: Veit and Company. pp. viii + 476.
16. ^ Henry, C.; Peters, J. F. (2010). Perception-based image classication, International. Journal of Intelligent
Computing and Cybernetics. 3 (3): 410430. doi:10.1108/17563781011066701.
17. ^ a b c d Henry, C. J. (2010), Near sets: Theory and applications, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Elec. Comp. Eng., Uni.
of MB, supervisor: J.F. Peters
18. ^ a b Henry, C.; Peters, J. F. (2011). Arthritic hand-nger movement similarity measurements: Tolerance near
set approach. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2011: 114. doi:10.1155/2011/569898.
19. ^ Henry, C. J.; Ramanna, S. (2011). Parallel Computation in Finding Near Neighbourhoods. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science: 523532.
20. ^ a b Herrlich, H. (1974). A concept of nearness. General Topology and its Applications. 4: 191212.
doi:10.1016/0016-660x(74)90021-x.
21. ^ Hocking, J. G.; Naimpally, S. A. (2009), Nearnessa better approach to continuity and limits, Allahabad
Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 3, Allahabad: The Allahabad Mathematical Society, pp. iv+66,
ISBN 978-81-908159-1-8 Missing or empty |title= (help)
22. ^ nan, E.; ztrk, M. A. (2012). Near groups on nearness approximation spaces. Hacettepe Journal of
Mathematics and Statistics. 41 (4): 545558.
23. ^ Isbell, J. R. (1964). Uniform spaces. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society. pp. xi +
175.
24. ^ Ivanova, V. M.; Ivanov, A. A. (1959). Contiguity spaces and bicompact extensions of topological spaces
(russian)". Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR. 127: 2022.
25. ^ Knaster, B.; Kuratowski, C. (1921). Sur les ensembles connexes. Fundamenta Mathematicae. 2: 206255.
26. ^ Kovr, M. M. (2011). A new causal topology and why the universe is co-compact. arXiv:1112.0817
[math-ph].
27. ^ Kuratowski, C. (1958), Topologie i, Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. XIII + 494pp.
Missing or empty |title= (help)
28. ^ Leader, S. (1967). Metrization of proximity spaces. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society.
18: 10841088. doi:10.2307/2035803.
29. ^ Lodato, M. W. (1962), On topologically induced generalized proximity relations, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers
University
30. ^ Lodato, M. W. (1964). On topologically induced generalized proximity relations I. Proceedings of the
American Mathematical Society. 15: 417422. doi:10.2307/2034517.
31. ^ Lodato, M. W. (1966). On topologically induced generalized proximity relations II. Pacic Journal of
Mathematics. 17: 131135.
32. ^ MacLane, S. (1971). Categories for the working mathematician. Berlin: Springer. pp. v+262pp.
33. ^ Mozzochi, C. J.; Naimpally, S. A. (2009), Uniformity and proximity, Allahabad Mathematical Society
Lecture Note Series, 2, Allahabad: The Allahabad Mathematical Society, pp. xii+153, ISBN 978-81-908159-
1-8 Missing or empty |title= (help)
34. ^ Naimpally, S. A. (1970). Proximity spaces. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. x+128. ISBN
978-0-521-09183-1.
35. ^ Naimpally, S. A. (2009). Proximity approach to problems in topology and analysis. Munich, Germany:
Oldenbourg Verlag. pp. ix + 204. ISBN 978-3-486-58917-7.
164 CHAPTER 40. NEAR SETS
36. ^ Naimpally, S. A.; Peters, J. F. (2013). Preservation of continuity. Scientiae Mathematicae Japonicae. 76
(2): 17.
37. ^ a b c d Naimpally, S. A.; Peters, J. F. (2013). Topology with Applications. Topological Spaces via Near and
Far. Singapore: World Scientic.
38. ^ Naimpally, S. A.; Peters, J. F.; Wolski, M. (2013). Near set theory and applications. Special Issue in
Mathematics in Computer Science. 7. Berlin: Springer. p. 136.
39. ^ Naimpally, S. A.; Warrack, B. D. (1970), Proximity spaces, Cambridge Tract in Mathematics, 59, Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. x+128 Missing or empty |title= (help)
40. ^ Pal, S. K.; Peters, J. F. (2010). Rough fuzzy image analysis. Foundations and methodologies. London, UK,:
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781439803295.
41. ^ Peters, J. F. (2009). Tolerance near sets and image correspondence. International Journal of Bio-Inspired
Computation. 1 (4): 239245. doi:10.1504/ijbic.2009.024722.
42. ^ a b c Peters, J. F.; Wasilewski, P. (2009). Foundations of near sets. Information Sciences. 179 (18): 3091
3109. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2009.04.018.
43. ^ a b c Peters, J. F. (2007). Near sets. General theory about nearness of objects. Applied Mathematical
Sciences. 1 (53): 26092629.
44. ^ a b Peters, J. F. (2007). Near sets. Special theory about nearness of objects. Fundamenta Informaticae. 75
(14): 407433.
45. ^ Peters, J. F. (2010). Corrigenda and addenda: Tolerance near sets and image correspondence. International
Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation. 2 (5): 310318. doi:10.1504/ijbic.2010.036157.
46. ^ Peters, J. F. (2011), How near are Zdzisaw Pawlaks paintings? Merotopic distance between regions of
interest, in Skowron, A.; Suraj, S., Intelligent Systems Reference Library volume dedicated to Prof. Zdzisaw
Pawlak, Berlin: Springer, pp. 119 Missing or empty |title= (help)
47. ^ Peters, J. F. (2011), Suciently near sets of neighbourhoods, in Yao, J. T.; Ramanna, S.; Wang, G.; et al.,
Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence 6954, Berlin: Springer, pp. 1724 Missing or empty |title= (help)
48. ^ a b c d Peters, J. F. (2013). Near sets: An introduction. Mathematics in Computer Science. 7 (1): 39.
doi:10.1007/s11786-013-0149-6.
49. ^ a b c Peters, J. F. (2014). Proximal relator spaces. FILOMAT: 15 (in press).
50. ^ a b c d e Peters, J. F. (2014). Topology of Digital Images. Visual Pattern Discovery in Proximity Spaces. 63.
Springer. p. 342. ISBN 978-3-642-53844-5.
51. ^ a b Peters, J. F.; nan, E.; ztrk, M. A. (2014). Spatial and descriptive isometries in proximity spaces.
General Mathematics Notes. 21 (2): 125134.
52. ^ Peters, J. F.; Naimpally, S. A. (2011). Approach spaces for near families. General Mathematics Notes. 2
(1): 159164.
53. ^ a b c Peters, J. F.; Naimpally, S. A. (2011). General Mathematics Notes. 2 (1): 159164. Missing or empty
|title= (help)
54. ^ Peters, J. F.; Puzio, L. (2009). Image analysis with anisotropic wavelet-based nearness measures. Interna-
tional Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems. 2 (3): 168183. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2009.04.018.
55. ^ Peters, J. F.; Shahfar, S.; Ramanna, S.; Szturm, T. (2007), Biologically-inspired adaptive learning: A near
set approach, Frontiers in the Convergence of Bioscience and Information Technologies, Korea Missing or
empty |title= (help)
56. ^ Peters, J. F.; Tiwari, S. (2011). Approach merotopies and near lters. Theory and application. General
Mathematics Notes. 3 (1): 3245.
57. ^ Peters, J. F.; Tiwari, S. (2011). Approach merotopies and near lters. Theory and application. General
Mathematics Notes. 3 (1): 3245.
40.16. REFERENCES 165
58. ^ Peters, J. F.; Wasilewski, P. (2012). Tolerance spaces: Origins, theoretical aspects and applications. In-
formation Sciences. 195: 211225. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.01.023.
59. ^ Picado, J. Weil nearness spaces. Portugaliae Mathematica. 55 (2): 233254.
60. ^ a b c Poincar, J. H. (1895). L'espace et la gomtrie. Revue de m'etaphysique et de morale. 3: 631646.
61. ^ a b c Poincar, J. H. (1902). Sur certaines surfaces algbriques; troisime complment 'a l'analysis situs.
Bulletin de la Socit de France. 30: 4970.
62. ^ a b Poincar, J. H. (1913 & 2009). Dernires penses, trans. by J.W. Bolduc as Mathematics and science: Last
essays. Paris & NY: Flammarion & Kessinger. Check date values in: |date= (help)
63. ^ a b Poincar, J. H. (1894). Sur la nature du raisonnement mathmatique. Revue de maphysique et de
morale. 2: 371384.
64. ^ a b Ramanna, S.; Meghdadi, A. H. (2009). Measuring resemblances between swarm behaviours: A percep-
tual tolerance near set approach. Fundamenta Informaticae. 95 (4): 533552. doi:10.3233/FI-2009-163.
65. ^ a b Riesz, F. (1908). Stetigkeitsbegri und abstrakte mengenlehre (PDF). Atti del IV Congresso Inter-
nazionale dei Matematici II: 1824.
66. ^ Shreider, J. A. (1975). Equality, resemblance, and order. Russia: Mir Publishers. p. 279.
67. ^ a b c d Smirnov, J. M. (1952). On proximity spaces. Mat. Sb. (N.S.). 31 (73): 543574 (English translation:
Amer. Math. Soc. Trans. Ser. 2, 38, 1964, 535).
68. ^ Smirnov, J. M. (1952). On proximity spaces in the sense of V.A. Efremovi". Math. Sb. (N.S.). 84:
895898, English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Trans. Ser. 2, 38, 1964, 14.
69. ^ Smirnov, J. M. (1954). On the completeness of proximity spaces. I.. Trudy Moskov. Mat. Ob. 3:
271306, English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Trans. Ser. 2, 38, 1964, 3774.
70. ^ Smirnov, J. M. (1955). On the completeness of proximity spaces. II.. Trudy Moskov. Mat. Ob. 4:
421438, English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Trans. Ser. 2, 38, 1964, 7594.
71. ^ a b Sossinsky, A. B. (1986). Tolerance space theory and some applications. Acta Applicandae Mathemati-
cae. 5 (2): 137167. doi:10.1007/bf00046585.
72. ^ Szz, . (1997). Uniformly, proximally and topologically compact relators. Mathematica Pannonica. 8
(1): 103116.
73. ^ Szz, . (1987). Basic tools and mild continuities in relator spaces. Acta Mathematica Hungarica. 50:
177201. doi:10.1007/bf01903935.
74. ^ Szz, (2000). An extension of Kelleys closed relation theorem to relator spaces. FILOMAT. 14: 4971.
75. ^ Tiwari, S. (2010), Some aspects of general topology and applications. Approach merotopic structures and
applications, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Math., Allahabad (U.P.), India, supervisor: M. khare
76. ^ a b Tiwari, S.; Peters, J. F. (2013). A new approach to the study of extended metric spaces. Mathematica
Aeterna. 3 (7): 565577.
77. ^ Tukey, J. W. (1940), Convergence and uniformity in topology, Annals of Mathematics Studies, AM2,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, p. 90 Missing or empty |title= (help)
78. ^ ech, E. (1966). Topological spaces, revised ed. by Z. Frolik and M. Kattov. London: John Wiley & Sons.
p. 893.
79. ^ Wasilewski, P. (2004), On selected similarity relations and their applications into cognitive science, Ph.D.
thesis, Dept. Logic
80. ^ Wasilewski, P.; Peters, J. F.; Ramanna, S. (2011). Perceptual tolerance intersection. Transactions on
Rough Sets XIII: 159174.
81. ^ Weil, A. (1938), Sur les espaces structure uniforme et sur la topologie gnrale, Actualits scientique
et industrielles, Paris: Harmann & cie Missing or empty |title= (help)
166 CHAPTER 40. NEAR SETS
82. ^ Wolski, M. (2010). Perception and classication. A note on near sets and rough sets. Fundamenta Infor-
maticae. 101: 143155.
83. ^ a b Zeeman, E. C. (1962), The topology of the brain and visual perception, in Fort, Jr., M. K., Topology
of 3-Manifolds and Related Topics, University of Georgia Institute Conference Proceedings (1962): Prentice-
Hall, pp. 240256 Missing or empty |title= (help)
Peters, J. F.; Naimpally, S. A. (2012). Applications of near sets (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical
Society. 59 (4): 536542. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.371.7903 .
Chapter 41
Partial function
Not to be confused with partial function of a multilinear map or the mathematical concept of a piecewise function.
For example, we can consider the square root function restricted to the integers
g: Z Z
g(n) = n.
Thus g(n) is only dened for n that are perfect squares (i.e., 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, ...). So, g(25) = 5, but g(26) is undened.
167
168 CHAPTER 41. PARTIAL FUNCTION
f :NNN
f (x, y) = x y.
It is dened only when x y .
Injective function
Surjective function
Multivalued function
41.5 References
[1] Christopher Hollings (2014). Mathematics across the Iron Curtain: A History of the Algebraic Theory of Semigroups.
American Mathematical Society. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-4704-1493-1.
[2] Lutz Schrder (2001). Categories: a free tour. In Jrgen Koslowski and Austin Melton. Categorical Perspectives. Springer
Science & Business Media. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8176-4186-3.
[3] Neal Koblitz; B. Zilber; Yu. I. Manin (2009). A Course in Mathematical Logic for Mathematicians. Springer Science &
Business Media. p. 290. ISBN 978-1-4419-0615-1.
[4] Francis Borceux (1994). Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 2, Categories and Structures. Cambridge University
Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-521-44179-7.
[5] Marco Grandis (2012). Homological Algebra: The Interplay of Homology with Distributive Lattices and Orthodox Semi-
groups. World Scientic. p. 55. ISBN 978-981-4407-06-9.
[6] Peter Burmeister (1993). Partial algebras an introductory survey. In Ivo G. Rosenberg and Gert Sabidussi. Algebras
and Orders. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-0-7923-2143-9.
[7] Alfred Hoblitzelle Cliord; G. B. Preston (1967). The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups. Volume II. American Mathematical
Soc. p. xii. ISBN 978-0-8218-0272-4.
[8] Peter M. Higgins (1992). Techniques of semigroup theory. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-19-
853577-5.
[9] Olexandr Ganyushkin; Volodymyr Mazorchuk (2008). Classical Finite Transformation Semigroups: An Introduction.
Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 16 and 24. ISBN 978-1-84800-281-4.
170 CHAPTER 41. PARTIAL FUNCTION
Martin Davis (1958), Computability and Unsolvability, McGrawHill Book Company, Inc, New York. Re-
published by Dover in 1982. ISBN 0-486-61471-9.
Stephen Kleene (1952), Introduction to Meta-Mathematics, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, 10th printing with corrections added on 7th printing (1974). ISBN 0-7204-2103-9.
Harold S. Stone (1972), Introduction to Computer Organization and Data Structures, McGrawHill Book Com-
pany, New York.
Chapter 42
{x,y,z}
The Hasse diagram of the set of all subsets of a three-element set {x, y, z}, ordered by inclusion. Sets on the same horizontal level
are incomparable with each other. Some other pairs, such as {x} and {y,z}, are also incomparable.
In mathematics, especially order theory, a partially ordered set (also poset) formalizes and generalizes the intuitive
concept of an ordering, sequencing, or arrangement of the elements of a set. A poset consists of a set together with
a binary relation indicating that, for certain pairs of elements in the set, one of the elements precedes the other in
the ordering. The word partial in the names partial order or partially ordered set is used as an indication that
not every pair of elements need be comparable. That is, there may be pairs of elements for which neither element
precedes the other in the poset. Partial orders thus generalize total orders, in which every pair is comparable.
To be a partial order, a binary relation must be reexive (each element is comparable to itself), antisymmetric (no
two dierent elements precede each other), and transitive (the start of a chain of precedence relations must precede
the end of the chain).
One familiar example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy. Some
171
172 CHAPTER 42. PARTIALLY ORDERED SET
pairs of people bear the descendant-ancestor relationship, but other pairs of people are incomparable, with neither
being a descendent of the other.
A poset can be visualized through its Hasse diagram, which depicts the ordering relation.[1]
42.2 Examples
Standard examples of posets arising in mathematics include:
The real numbers ordered by the standard less-than-or-equal relation (a totally ordered set as well).
The set of subsets of a given set (its power set) ordered by inclusion (see the gure on top-right). Similarly, the
set of sequences ordered by subsequence, and the set of strings ordered by substring.
The set of natural numbers equipped with the relation of divisibility.
The vertex set of a directed acyclic graph ordered by reachability.
The set of subspaces of a vector space ordered by inclusion.
For a partially ordered set P, the sequence space containing all sequences of elements from P, where sequence
a precedes sequence b if every item in a precedes the corresponding item in b. Formally, (an)n (bn)n
if and only if an bn for all n in , i.e. a componentwise order.
For a set X and a partially ordered set P, the function space containing all functions from X to P, where f g
if and only if f(x) g(x) for all x in X.
A fence, a partially ordered set dened by an alternating sequence of order relations a < b > c < d ...
The set of events in special relativity, where for two events X and Y, X Y if and only if Y is in the future
light cone of X. An event Y can only be causally aected by X if X Y.
42.3. EXTREMA 173
42.3 Extrema
There are several notions of greatest and least element in a poset P, notably:
Greatest element and least element: An element g in P is a greatest element if for every element a in P, a g.
An element m in P is a least element if for every element a in P, a m. A poset can only have one greatest or
least element.
Maximal elements and minimal elements: An element g in P is a maximal element if there is no element a in
P such that a > g. Similarly, an element m in P is a minimal element if there is no element a in P such that a <
m. If a poset has a greatest element, it must be the unique maximal element, but otherwise there can be more
than one maximal element, and similarly for least elements and minimal elements.
Upper and lower bounds: For a subset A of P, an element x in P is an upper bound of A if a x, for each
element a in A. In particular, x need not be in A to be an upper bound of A. Similarly, an element x in P is a
lower bound of A if a x, for each element a in A. A greatest element of P is an upper bound of P itself, and
a least element is a lower bound of P.
For example, consider the positive integers, ordered by divisibility: 1 is a least element, as it divides all other elements;
on the other hand this poset does not have a greatest element (although if one would include 0 in the poset, which
is a multiple of any integer, that would be a greatest element; see gure). This partially ordered set does not even
have any maximal elements, since any g divides for instance 2g, which is distinct from it, so g is not maximal. If the
number 1 is excluded, while keeping divisibility as ordering on the elements greater than 1, then the resulting poset
does not have a least element, but any prime number is a minimal element for it. In this poset, 60 is an upper bound
(though not a least upper bound) of the subset {2,3,5,10}, which does not have any lower bound (since 1 is not in the
poset); on the other hand 2 is a lower bound of the subset of powers of 2, which does not have any upper bound.
All three can similarly be dened for the Cartesian product of more than two sets.
Applied to ordered vector spaces over the same eld, the result is in each case also an ordered vector space.
See also orders on the Cartesian product of totally ordered sets.
a, b X with a X b, or
a, b Y with a Y b, or
a X and b Y.
If two posets are well-ordered, then so is their ordinal sum.[5] The ordinal sum operation is one of two operations
used to form series-parallel partial orders, and in this context is called series composition. The other operation used
to form these orders, the disjoint union of two partially ordered sets (with no order relation between elements of one
set and elements of the other set) is called in this context parallel composition.
174 CHAPTER 42. PARTIALLY ORDERED SET
Series composition
Parallel composition
Hasse diagram of a series-parallel partial order, formed as the ordinal sum of three smaller partial orders.
Strict and non-strict partial orders are closely related. A non-strict partial order may be converted to a strict partial
order by removing all relationships of the form a a. Conversely, a strict partial order may be converted to a non-
strict partial order by adjoining all relationships of that form. Thus, if "" is a non-strict partial order, then the
corresponding strict partial order "<" is the irreexive kernel given by:
a < b if a b and a b
42.7. INVERSE AND ORDER DUAL 175
Conversely, if "<" is a strict partial order, then the corresponding non-strict partial order "" is the reexive closure
given by:
a b if a < b or a = b.
The number of strict partial orders is the same as that of partial orders.
If the count is made only up to isomorphism, the seqeuence 1, 1, 2, 5, 16, 63, 318, (sequence A000112 in the
OEIS) is obtained.
If P is a partially ordered set that has also been given the structure of a topological space, then it is customary to
assume that {(a, b) : a b} is a closed subset of the topological product space P P . Under this assumption partial
order relations are well behaved at limits in the sense that if ai a , bi b and ai bi for all i, then a b.[9]
42.13 Interval
For a b, the closed interval [a,b] is the set of elements x satisfying a x b (i.e. a x and x b). It contains at
least the elements a and b.
Using the corresponding strict relation "<", the open interval (a,b) is the set of elements x satisfying a < x < b (i.e. a
< x and x < b). An open interval may be empty even if a < b. For example, the open interval (1,2) on the integers is
empty since there are no integers i such that 1 < i < 2.
Sometimes the denitions are extended to allow a > b, in which case the interval is empty.
The half-open intervals [a,b) and (a,b] are dened similarly.
A poset is locally nite if every interval is nite. For example, the integers are locally nite under their natural order-
ing. The lexicographical order on the cartesian product is not locally nite, since e.g. (1,2)(1,3)(1,4)(1,5)...(2,1).
Using the interval notation, the property "a is covered by b" can be rephrased equivalently as [a,b] = {a,b}.
This concept of an interval in a partial order should not be confused with the particular class of partial orders known
as the interval orders.
causal set
comparability graph
directed set
graded poset
incidence algebra
lattice
ordered group
poset topology, a kind of topological space that can be dened from any poset
semilattice
semiorder
stochastic dominance
strict weak ordering strict partial order "<" in which the relation neither a < b nor b < a" is transitive.
Zorns lemma
42.15 Notes
[1] Merrield, Richard E.; Simmons, Howard E. (1989). Topological Methods in Chemistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
p. 28. ISBN 0-471-83817-9. Retrieved 27 July 2012. A partially ordered set is conveniently represented by a Hasse
diagram...
[2] Simovici, Dan A. & Djeraba, Chabane (2008). Partially Ordered Sets. Mathematical Tools for Data Mining: Set Theory,
Partial Orders, Combinatorics. Springer. ISBN 9781848002012.
[3] Neggers, J.; Kim, Hee Sik (1998), 4.2 Product Order and Lexicographic Order, Basic Posets, World Scientic, pp. 6263,
ISBN 9789810235895
[4] Davey, B. A.; Priestley, H. A., Introduction to Lattices and Order (Second Edition), 2002, p. 17-18
[5] P. R. Halmos (1974). Naive Set Theory. Springer. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-4757-1645-0.
[6] Flaka, V.; Jeek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF). Prague: School
of Mathematics - Physics Charles University. p. 1. Lemma 1.1 (iv). Note that this source refers to asymmetric relations
as strictly antisymmetric.
[7] Davey, B. A.; Priestley, H. A. (2002). Maps between ordered sets. Introduction to Lattices and Order (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 2324. ISBN 0-521-78451-4. MR 1902334.
[8] Jech, Thomas (2008) [1973]. The Axiom of Choice. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-46624-8.
[9] Ward, L. E. Jr (1954). Partially Ordered Topological Spaces. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 5 (1):
144161. doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-1954-0063016-5
178 CHAPTER 42. PARTIALLY ORDERED SET
42.16 References
Deshpande, Jayant V. (1968). On Continuity of a Partial Order. Proceedings of the American Mathematical
Society. 19 (2): 383386. doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-1968-0236071-7.
Schmidt, Gunther (2010). Relational Mathematics. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. 132.
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.
Preorder
This article is about binary relations. For the graph vertex ordering, see Depth-rst search. For purchase orders for
unreleased products, see Pre-order. For other uses, see Preorder (disambiguation).
Quasiorder redirects here. For irreexive transitive relations, see strict order.
In mathematics, especially in order theory, a preorder or quasiorder is a binary relation that is reexive and transitive.
Preorders are more general than equivalence relations and (non-strict) partial orders, both of which are special cases
of a preorder.
The name 'preorder' comes from the idea that preorders (that are not partial orders) are 'almost' (partial) orders,
but not quite; they're neither necessarily anti-symmetric nor symmetric. Because a preorder is a binary relation,
the symbol can be used as the notational device for the relation. However, because they are not necessarily anti-
symmetric, some of the ordinary intuition associated to the symbol may not apply. On the other hand, a preorder
can be used, in a straightforward fashion, to dene a partial order and an equivalence relation. Doing so, however, is
not always useful or worthwhile, depending on the problem domain being studied.
In words, when a b, one may say that b covers a or that a precedes b, or that b reduces to a. Occasionally, the
notation or is used instead of .
To every preorder, there corresponds a directed graph, with elements of the set corresponding to vertices, and the
order relation between pairs of elements corresponding to the directed edges between vertices. The converse is not
true: most directed graphs are neither reexive nor transitive. In general, the corresponding graphs may contain cycles.
A preorder that is antisymmetric no longer has cycles; it is a partial order, and corresponds to a directed acyclic graph.
A preorder that is symmetric is an equivalence relation; it can be thought of as having lost the direction markers on the
edges of the graph. In general, a preorders corresponding directed graph may have many disconnected components.
a a (reexivity)
if a b and b c then a c (transitivity)
A set that is equipped with a preorder is called a preordered set (or proset).[1]
If a preorder is also antisymmetric, that is, a b and b a implies a = b, then it is a partial order.
On the other hand, if it is symmetric, that is, if a b implies b a, then it is an equivalence relation.
Equivalently, the notion of a preordered set P can be formulated in a categorical framework as a thin category, i.e.
as a category with at most one morphism from an object to another. Here the objects correspond to the elements
of P, and there is one morphism for objects which are related, zero otherwise. Alternately, a preordered set can be
understood as an enriched category, enriched over the category 2 = (01).
179
180 CHAPTER 43. PREORDER
A preordered class is a class equipped with a preorder. Every set is a class and so every preordered set is a preordered
class.
43.2 Examples
The reachability relationship in any directed graph (possibly containing cycles) gives rise to a preorder, where
x y in the preorder if and only if there is a path from x to y in the directed graph. Conversely, every preorder
is the reachability relationship of a directed graph (for instance, the graph that has an edge from x to y for every
pair (x, y) with x y). However, many dierent graphs may have the same reachability preorder as each other.
In the same way, reachability of directed acyclic graphs, directed graphs with no cycles, gives rise to partially
ordered sets (preorders satisfying an additional anti-symmetry property).
Every nite topological space gives rise to a preorder on its points by dening x y if and only if x belongs to
every neighborhood of y. Every nite preorder can be formed as the specialization preorder of a topological
space in this way. That is, there is a one-to-one correspondence between nite topologies and nite preorders.
However, the relation between innite topological spaces and their specialization preorders is not one-to-one.
A net is a directed preorder, that is, each pair of elements has an upper bound. The denition of convergence
via nets is important in topology, where preorders cannot be replaced by partially ordered sets without losing
important features.
The relation dened by x y if f (x) f (y) , where f is a function into some preorder.
The relation dened by x y if there exists some injection from x to y. Injection may be replaced by surjection,
or any type of structure-preserving function, such as ring homomorphism, or permutation.
The embedding relation for countable total orderings.
The graph-minor relation in graph theory.
A category with at most one morphism from any object x to any other object y is a preorder. Such categories
are called thin. In this sense, categories generalize preorders by allowing more than one relation between
objects: each morphism is a distinct (named) preorder relation.
43.3 Uses
Preorders play a pivotal role in several situations:
Every preorder can be given a topology, the Alexandrov topology; and indeed, every preorder on a set is in
one-to-one correspondence with an Alexandrov topology on that set.
Preorders may be used to dene interior algebras.
Preorders provide the Kripke semantics for certain types of modal logic.
43.4. CONSTRUCTIONS 181
43.4 Constructions
Every binary relation R on a set S can be extended to a preorder on S by taking the transitive closure and reexive
closure, R+= . The transitive closure indicates path connection in R: x R+ y if and only if there is an R-path from x to
y.
Given a preorder on S one may dene an equivalence relation ~ on S such that a ~ b if and only if a b and b
a. (The resulting relation is reexive since a preorder is reexive, transitive by applying transitivity of the preorder
twice, and symmetric by denition.)
Using this relation, it is possible to construct a partial order on the quotient set of the equivalence, S / ~, the set of
all equivalence classes of ~. Note that if the preorder is R+= , S / ~ is the set of R-cycle equivalence classes: x [y]
if and only if x = y or x is in an R-cycle with y. In any case, on S / ~ we can dene [x] [y] if and only if x y.
By the construction of ~, this denition is independent of the chosen representatives and the corresponding relation
is indeed well-dened. It is readily veried that this yields a partially ordered set.
Conversely, from a partial order on a partition of a set S one can construct a preorder on S. There is a 1-to-1 corre-
spondence between preorders and pairs (partition, partial order).
For a preorder " ", a relation "<" can be dened as a < b if and only if (a b and not b a), or equivalently, using
the equivalence relation introduced above, (a b and not a ~ b). It is a strict partial order; every strict partial order
can be the result of such a construction. If the preorder is anti-symmetric, hence a partial order "", the equivalence
is equality, so the relation "<" can also be dened as a < b if and only if (a b and a b).
(We do not dene the relation "<" as a < b if and only if (a b and a b). Doing so would cause problems if
the preorder was not anti-symmetric, as the resulting relation "<" would not be transitive (think of how equivalent
non-equal elements relate).)
Conversely we have a b if and only if a < b or a ~ b. This is the reason for using the notation " "; "" can be
confusing for a preorder that is not anti-symmetric, it may suggest that a b implies that a < b or a = b.
Note that with this construction multiple preorders " " can give the same relation "<", so without more information,
such as the equivalence relation, " " cannot be reconstructed from "<". Possible preorders include the following:
Dene a b as a < b or a = b (i.e., take the reexive closure of the relation). This gives the partial order
associated with the strict partial order "<" through reexive closure; in this case the equivalence is equality, so
we don't need the notations and ~.
Dene a b as not b < a" (i.e., take the inverse complement of the relation), which corresponds to dening a
~ b as neither a < b nor b < a"; these relations and ~ are in general not transitive; however, if they are, ~ is
an equivalence; in that case "<" is a strict weak order. The resulting preorder is total, that is, a total preorder.
for n=3:
1 partition of 3, giving 1 preorder
3 partitions of 2+1, giving 3 3 = 9 preorders
1 partition of 1+1+1, giving 19 preorders
for n=4:
1 partition of 4, giving 1 preorder
7 partitions with two classes (4 of 3+1 and 3 of 2+2), giving 7 3 = 21 preorders
6 partitions of 2+1+1, giving 6 19 = 114 preorders
182 CHAPTER 43. PREORDER
43.6 Interval
For a b, the interval [a,b] is the set of points x satisfying a x and x b, also written a x b. It contains at
least the points a and b. One may choose to extend the denition to all pairs (a,b). The extra intervals are all empty.
Using the corresponding strict relation "<", one can also dene the interval (a,b) as the set of points x satisfying a <
x and x < b, also written a < x < b. An open interval may be empty even if a < b.
Also [a,b) and (a,b] can be dened similarly.
Directed set
Category of preordered sets
Prewellordering
Well-quasi-ordering
43.8 Notes
[1] For proset, see e.g. Eklund, Patrik; Ghler, Werner (1990), Generalized Cauchy spaces, Mathematische Nachrichten,
147: 219233, MR 1127325, doi:10.1002/mana.19901470123.
43.9 References
Schmidt, Gunther, Relational Mathematics, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 132,
Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7
Schrder, Bernd S. W. (2002), Ordered Sets: An Introduction, Boston: Birkhuser, ISBN 0-8176-4128-9
Chapter 44
Prewellordering
In set theory, a prewellordering is a binary relation that is transitive, total, and wellfounded (more precisely, the
relation x y y x is wellfounded). In other words, if is a prewellordering on a set X , and if we dene by
x y x y y x
then is an equivalence relation on X , and induces a wellordering on the quotient X/ . The order-type of this
induced wellordering is an ordinal, referred to as the length of the prewellordering.
A norm on a set X is a map from X into the ordinals. Every norm induces a prewellordering; if : X Ord is a
norm, the associated prewellordering is given by
x y (x) (y)
Conversely, every prewellordering is induced by a unique regular norm (a norm : X Ord is regular if, for any
x X and any < (x) , there is y X such that (y) = ).
1. x < y x P [y
/ P {x y y x}]
2. x y x P [y
/ P x y]
44.1.1 Examples
11 and 12 both have the prewellordering property; this is provable in ZFC alone. Assuming sucient large cardinals,
for every n , 12n+1 and 12n+2 have the prewellordering property.
44.1.2 Consequences
183
184 CHAPTER 44. PREWELLORDERING
Reduction
If is an adequate pointclass with the prewellordering property, then it also has the reduction property: For any
space X F and any sets A, B X , A and B both in , the union A B may be partitioned into sets A , B ,
both in , such that A A and B B .
Separation
If is an adequate pointclass whose dual pointclass has the prewellordering property, then has the separation
property: For any space X F and any sets A, B X , A and B disjoint sets both in , there is a set C X
such that both C and its complement X \ C are in , with A C and B C = .
For example, 11 has the prewellordering property, so 11 has the separation property. This means that if A and B
are disjoint analytic subsets of some Polish space X , then there is a Borel subset C of X such that C includes A and
is disjoint from B .
Graded poset a graded poset is analogous to a prewellordering with a norm, replacing a map to the ordinals
with a map to the integers
44.3 References
Moschovakis, Yiannis N. (1980). Descriptive Set Theory. North Holland. ISBN 0-444-70199-0.
Chapter 45
Propositional function
A propositional function in logic, is a sentence expressed in a way that would assume the value of true or false, except
that within the sentence is a variable (x) that is not dened or specied, which leaves the statement undetermined.
Of course, the sentence can consist of several such variables (e.g. n variables, in which case the function takes n
arguments). As a mathematical function, A(x) or A(x1 , x2 , , xn), the propositional function is abstracted from
predicates or propositional forms. As an example, lets imagine the predicate, x is hot. The substitution of any
entity for x will produce a specic proposition that can be described as either true or false, even though "x is hot on
its own has no value as either a true or false statement. However, when you assign x a value, such as lava, the function
then has the value true; while if you assign x a value like ice, the function then has the value false.
Propositional functions are useful in set theory for the formation of sets. For example, in 1903 Bertrand Russell wrote
in The Principles of Mathematics (page 106):
Later Russell examined the problem of whether propositional functions were predicative or not, and he proposed two
theories to try to get at this question: the zig-zag theory and the ramied theory of types.[1]
A Propositional Function, or a predicate, in a variable x is a sentence p(x) involving x that becomes a proposition
when we give x a denite value from the set of values it can take.
Boolean-valued function
Formula (logic)
Sentence (logic)
Open sentence
45.2 References
[1] Tiles, Mary (2004). The philosophy of set theory an historical introduction to Cantors paradise (Dover ed.). Mineola, N.Y.:
Dover Publications. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-486-43520-6. Retrieved 1 February 2013.
185
Chapter 46
Quasi-commutative property
pq = qp
The quasi-commutative property in matrices is dened[1] as follows. Given two non-commutable matrices x and y
xy yx = z
xz = zx
yz = zy
An example is found in the matrix mechanics introduced by Heisenberg as a version of quantum mechanics. In this
mechanics, p and q are innite matrices corresponding respectively to the momentum and position variables of a
particle.[1] These matrices are written out at Matrix mechanics#Harmonic oscillator, and z = i times the innite unit
matrix, where is the reduced Planck constant.
f :X Y X
f (f (x, y1 ), y2 ) = f (f (x, y2 ), y1 )
186
46.3. SEE ALSO 187
Accumulator (cryptography)
46.4 References
[1] Neal H. McCoy. On quasi-commutative matrices. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 36(2), 327340.
[2] Benaloh, J., & De Mare, M. (1994, January). One-way accumulators: A decentralized alternative to digital signatures. In
Advances in CryptologyEUROCRYPT93 (pp. 274285). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Chapter 47
Quasitransitive relation
Quasitransitivity is a weakened version of transitivity that is used in social choice theory or microeconomics. In-
formally, a relation is quasitransitive if it is symmetric for some values and transitive elsewhere. The concept was
introduced by Sen (1969) to study the consequences of Arrows theorem.
(a T b) (b T a) (b T c) (c T b) (a T c) (c T a).
(a P b) (a T b) (b T a).
47.2 Examples
Preferences are assumed to be quasitransitive (rather than transitive) in some economic contexts. The classic example
is a person indierent between 10 and 11 grams of sugar and indierent between 11 and 12 grams of sugar, but who
prefers 12 grams of sugar to 10. Similarly, the Sorites paradox can be resolved by weakening assumed transitivity of
certain relations to quasitransitivity.
47.3 Properties
Every transitive relation is quasitransitive; every quasitransitive relation is an acyclic relation. In each case the
converse does not hold in general.
Reexive relation
188
47.5. REFERENCES 189
47.5 References
Bossert, Walter; Suzumura, Ktar (2010). Consistency, choice and rationality. Harvard University Press.
ISBN 0674052994.
Sen, A. (1969). Quasi-transitivity, rational choice and collective decisions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 36: 381393.
Zbl 0181.47302. doi:10.2307/2296434.
Chapter 48
This article is about a generalization to category theory, used in scheme theory. For the common meaning, see
Equivalence class.
f pr
RX X X,
i
i = 1, 2,
where R is an object in C and "f is an equivalence relation means that, for any object T in C, the image (which is
a set) of f : R(T ) = Mor(T, R) X(T ) X(T ) is an equivalence relation; that is, (x, y) is in it if and only if
(y, x) is in it, etc.
The basic case in practice is when C is the category of all schemes over some scheme S. But the notion is exible and
one can also take C to be the category of sheaves.
48.1 Examples
Let X be a set and consider some equivalence relation on it. Let Q be the set of all equivalence classes in X.
Then the map q : X Q that sends an element x to an equivalence class to which x belong is a quotient.
In the above example, Q is a subset of the power set H of X. In algebraic geometry, one might replace H
by a Hilbert scheme or disjoint union of Hilbert schemes. In fact, Grothendieck constructed a relative Picard
scheme of a at projective scheme X[1] as a quotient Q (of the scheme Z parametrizing relative eective divisors
on X) that is a closed scheme of a Hilbert scheme H. The quotient map q : Z Q can then be thought of as
a relative version of the Abel map.
48.3 Notes
[1] One also needs to assume the geometric bers are integral schemes; Mumfords example shows the integral cannot be
omitted.
190
48.4. REFERENCES 191
48.4 References
Nitsure, N. Construction of Hilbert and Quot schemes. Fundamental algebraic geometry: Grothendiecks FGA
explained, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 123, American Mathematical Society 2005, 105137.
Chapter 49
In logic, a rational consequence relation is a non-monotonic consequence relation satisfying certain properties listed
below.
49.1 Properties
A rational consequence relation satises:
REF Reexivity
LLE Left Logical Equivalence
|=
RWE Right-hand weakening
CMO Cautious monotonicity
DIS Logical or (ie disjunction) on left hand side
AND Logical and on right hand side
RMO Rational monotonicity
49.2 Uses
The rational consequence relation is non-monotonic, and the relation is intended to carry the meaning theta
usually implies phi or phi usually follows from theta. In this sense it is more useful for modeling some everyday
situations than a monotone consequence relation because the latter relation models facts in a more strict boolean
fashion - something either follows under all circumstances or it does not.
49.2.1 Example
The statement If a cake contains sugar then it tastes good implies under a monotone consequence relation the state-
ment If a cake contains sugar and soap then it tastes good. Clearly this doesn't match our own understanding of
cakes. By asserting If a cake contains sugar then it usually tastes good a rational consequence relation allows for
a more realistic model of the real world, and certainly it does not automatically follow that If a cake contains sugar
and soap then it usually tastes good.
Note that if we also have the information If a cake contains sugar then it usually contains butter then we may legally
conclude (under CMO) that If a cake contains sugar and butter then it usually tastes good.. Equally in the absence
192
49.3. CONSEQUENCES 193
of a statement such as If a cake contains sugar then usually it contains no soap" then we may legally conclude from
RMO that If the cake contains sugar and soap then it usually tastes good.
If this latter conclusion seems ridiculous to you then it is likely that you are subconsciously asserting your own pre-
conceived knowledge about cakes when evaluating the validity of the statement. That is, from your experience you
know that cakes which contain soap are likely to taste bad so you add to the system your own knowledge such as
Cakes which contain sugar do not usually contain soap., even though this knowledge is absent from it. If the conclu-
sion seems silly to you then you might consider replacing the word soap with the word eggs to see if it changes your
feelings.
49.2.2 Example
Consider the sentences:
This would not be a valid conclusion under a monotonic deduction system (omitting of course the word 'usually'),
since the third sentence would contradict the rst two. In contrast the conclusion follows immediately using the
Gabbay-Makinson rules: applying the rule CMO to the last two sentences yields the result.
49.3 Consequences
The following consequences follow from the above rules:
()
MP Modus ponens
MP is proved via the rules AND and RWE.
CON Conditionalisation ()
CC Cautious Cut
The notion of Cautious Cut simply encapsulates the operation of conditionalisation, followed by MP.
It may seem redundant in this sense, but it is often used in proofs so it is useful to have a name for
it to act as a shortcut.
|=
SCL Supraclassity
SCL is proved trivially via REF and RWE.
1. S si = for each 1 i m
Then the relation s is a rational consequence relation. This may easily be veried by checking directly that it satises
the GM-conditions.
The idea behind the sequence of atom sets is that the earlier sets account for the most likely situations such as young
people are usually law abiding whereas the later sets account for the less likely situations such as young joyriders
are usually not law abiding.
49.4.1 Notes
1. By the denition of the relation s , the relation is unchanged if we replace s2 with s2 \ s1 , s3 with s3 \ s2 \ s1
m1
... and sm with sm \ i=1 si . In this way we make each si disjoint. Conversely it makes no dierence to the
rcr s if we add to subsequent si atoms from any of the preceding si .
49.5.1 Notes
1. By the above property of s , the representation of an rcr need not be unique - if the si are not disjoint then
they can be made so without changing the rcr and conversely if they are disjoint then each subsequent set can
contain any of the atoms of the previous sets without changing the rcr.
49.6 References
A mathematical paper in which the GM rules are dened
Chapter 50
Reduct
This article is about a relation on algebraic structures. For reducts in abstract rewriting, see Conuence (abstract
rewriting).
In universal algebra and in model theory, a reduct of an algebraic structure is obtained by omitting some of the
operations and relations of that structure. The converse of reduct is expansion.
50.1 Denition
Let A be an algebraic structure (in the sense of universal algebra) or equivalently a structure in the sense of model
theory, organized as a set X together with an indexed family of operations and relations on that set, with index set
I. Then the reduct of A dened by a subset J of I is the structure consisting of the set X and J-indexed family of
operations and relations whose j-th operation or relation for jJ is the j-th operation or relation of A. That is, this
reduct is the structure A with the omission of those operations and relations i for which i is not in J.
A structure A is an expansion of B just when B is a reduct of A. That is, reduct and expansion are mutual converses.
50.2 Examples
The monoid (Z, +, 0) of integers under addition is a reduct of the group (Z, +, , 0) of integers under addition and
negation, obtained by omitting negation. By contrast, the monoid (N,+,0) of natural numbers under addition is not
the reduct of any group.
Conversely the group (Z, +, , 0) is the expansion of the monoid (Z, +, 0), expanding it with the operation of negation.
50.3 References
Burris, Stanley N.; H. P. Sankappanavar (1981). A Course in Universal Algebra. Springer. ISBN 3-540-90578-
2.
Hodges, Wilfrid (1993). Model theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-30442-3.
195
Chapter 51
Reexive closure
In mathematics, the reexive closure of a binary relation R on a set X is the smallest reexive relation on X that
contains R.
For example, if X is a set of distinct numbers and x R y means "x is less than y", then the reexive closure of R is the
relation "x is less than or equal to y".
51.1 Denition
The reexive closure S of a relation R on a set X is given by
S = R {(x, x) : x X}
In words, the reexive closure of R is the union of R with the identity relation on X.
51.2 Example
As an example, if
X = {1, 2, 3, 4}
R = {(1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 4)}
then the relation R is already reexive by itself, so it doesn't dier from its reexive closure.
However, if any of the pairs in R was absent, it would be inserted for the reexive closure. For example, if
X = {1, 2, 3, 4}
R = {(1, 1), (2, 2), (4, 4)}
then reexive closure is, by the denition of a reexive closure:
196
51.4. REFERENCES 197
51.4 References
Franz Baader and Tobias Nipkow, Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 8
Chapter 52
Reexive relation
In mathematics, a binary relation R over a set X is reexive if every element of X is related to itself.[1][2] Formally,
this may be written x X : x R x.
An example of a reexive relation is the relation "is equal to" on the set of real numbers, since every real number is
equal to itself. A reexive relation is said to have the reexive property or is said to possess reexivity. Along with
symmetry and transitivity, reexivity is one of three properties dening equivalence relations.
A relation that is irreexive, or anti-reexive, is a binary relation on a set where no element is related to itself. An
example is the greater than relation (x > y) on the real numbers. Note that not every relation which is not reexive
is irreexive; it is possible to dene relations where some elements are related to themselves but others are not (i.e.,
neither all nor none are). For example, the binary relation the product of x and y is even is reexive on the set of
even numbers, irreexive on the set of odd numbers, and neither reexive nor irreexive on the set of natural numbers.
A relation ~ on a set S is called quasi-reexive if every element that is related to some element is also related to
itself, formally: x, y S : x ~ y (x ~ x y ~ y). An example is the relation has the same limit as on the set of
sequences of real numbers: not every sequence has a limit, and thus the relation is not reexive, but if a sequence has
the same limit as some sequence, then it has the same limit as itself.
The reexive closure of a binary relation ~ on a set S is the smallest reexive relation on S that is a superset of ~.
Equivalently, it is the union of ~ and the identity relation on S, formally: () = (~) (=). For example, the reexive
closure of x < y is x y.
The reexive reduction, or irreexive kernel, of a binary relation ~ on a set S is the smallest relation such that
shares the same reexive closure as ~. It can be seen in a way as the opposite of the reexive closure. It is equivalent
to the complement of the identity relation on S with regard to ~, formally: () = (~) \ (=). That is, it is equivalent to
~ except for where x~x is true. For example, the reexive reduction of x y is x < y.
198
52.2. EXAMPLES 199
52.2 Examples
is equal to (equality)
is a subset of (set inclusion)
divides (divisibility)
is greater than or equal to
is less than or equal to
is not equal to
is coprime to (for the integers>1, since 1 is coprime to itself)
is a proper subset of
is greater than
is less than
52.6 Notes
[1] Levy 1979:74
[4] Alan Hausman; Howard Kahane; Paul Tidman (2013). Logic and Philosophy A Modern Introduction. Wadsworth. ISBN
1-133-05000-X. Here: p.327-328
[5] D.S. Clarke; Richard Behling (1998). Deductive Logic An Introduction to Evaluation Techniques and Logical Theory.
University Press of America. ISBN 0-7618-0922-8. Here: p.187
52.7 References
Levy, A. (1979) Basic Set Theory, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag. Reprinted 2002,
Dover. ISBN 0-486-42079-5
Lidl, R. and Pilz, G. (1998). Applied abstract algebra, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag.
ISBN 0-387-98290-6
Quine, W. V. (1951). Mathematical Logic, Revised Edition. Reprinted 2003, Harvard University Press. ISBN
0-674-55451-5
Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.
Relation algebra
Not to be confused with relational algebra, a framework for nitary relations and relational databases.
In mathematics and abstract algebra, a relation algebra is a residuated Boolean algebra expanded with an involution
called converse, a unary operation. The motivating example of a relation algebra is the algebra 2X of all binary
relations on a set X, that is, subsets of the cartesian square X2 , with RS interpreted as the usual composition of
binary relations R and S, and with the converse of R interpreted as the inverse relation.
Relation algebra emerged in the 19th-century work of Augustus De Morgan and Charles Peirce, which culminated
in the algebraic logic of Ernst Schrder. The equational form of relation algebra treated here was developed by
Alfred Tarski and his students, starting in the 1940s. Tarski and Givant (1987) applied relation algebra to a variable-
free treatment of axiomatic set theory, with the implication that mathematics founded on set theory could itself be
conducted without variables.
53.1 Denition
A relation algebra (L, , , , 0, 1, , I, ) is an algebraic structure equipped with the Boolean operations of conjunc-
tion xy, disjunction xy, and negation x , the Boolean constants 0 and 1, the relational operations of composition
xy and converse x, and the relational constant I, such that these operations and constants satisfy certain equations
constituting an axiomatization of relation algebras. Roughly, a relation algebra is to a system of binary relations on a
set containing the empty (0), complete (1), and identity (I) relations and closed under these ve operations as a group
is to a system of permutations of a set containing the identity permutation and closed under composition and inverse.
However, the rst order theory of relation algebras is not complete for such systems of binary relations.
Following Jnsson and Tsinakis (1993) it is convenient to dene additional operations xy = xy, and, dually, xy
= xy . Jnsson and Tsinakis showed that Ix = xI, and that both were equal to x. Hence a relation algebra can
equally well be dened as an algebraic structure (L, , , , 0, 1, , I, , ). The advantage of this signature over
the usual one is that a relation algebra can then be dened in full simply as a residuated Boolean algebra for which
Ix is an involution, that is, I(Ix) = x . The latter condition can be thought of as the relational counterpart of the
equation 1/(1/x) = x for ordinary arithmetic reciprocal, and some authors use reciprocal as a synonym for converse.
Since residuated Boolean algebras are axiomatized with nitely many identities, so are relation algebras. Hence the
latter form a variety, the variety RA of relation algebras. Expanding the above denition as equations yields the
following nite axiomatization.
53.1.1 Axioms
The axioms B1-B10 below are adapted from Givant (2006: 283), and were rst set out by Tarski in 1948.[1]
L is a Boolean algebra under binary disjunction, , and unary complementation () :
B1: A B = B A
B2: A (B C) = (A B) C
201
202 CHAPTER 53. RELATION ALGEBRA
B3: (A B) (A B ) = A
This axiomatization of Boolean algebra is due to Huntington (1933). Note that the meet of the implied Boolean
algebra is not the operator (even though it distributes over like a meet does), nor is the 1 of the Boolean algebra
the I constant.
L is a monoid under binary composition () and nullary identity I:
B6: A = A
B7: (AB) = BA
Axiom B6 denes conversion as an involution, whereas B7 expresses the antidistributive property of conversion
relative to composition.[2]
Converse and composition distribute over disjunction:
B8: (AB) = AB
B9: (AB)C = (AC)(BC)
B10 is Tarskis equational form of the fact, discovered by Augustus De Morgan, that AB C AC B CB
A .
B10: (A(AB) )B = B
These axioms are ZFC theorems; for the purely Boolean B1-B3, this fact is trivial. After each of the following axioms
is shown the number of the corresponding theorem in Chapter 3 of Suppes (1960), an exposition of ZFC: B4 27, B5
45, B6 14, B7 26, B8 16, B9 23.
while dispensing with FOL and its connectives, quantiers, turnstiles, and modus ponens. Because RA can express
Peano arithmetic and set theory, Gdels incompleteness theorems apply to it; RA is incomplete, incompletable, and
undecidable. (N.B. The Boolean algebra fragment of RA is complete and decidable.)
The representable relation algebras, forming the class RRA, are those relation algebras isomorphic to some re-
lation algebra consisting of binary relations on some set, and closed under the intended interpretation of the RA
operations. It is easily shown, e.g. using the method of pseudoelementary classes, that RRA is a quasivariety, that
is, axiomatizable by a universal Horn theory. In 1950, Roger Lyndon proved the existence of equations holding in
RRA that did not hold in RA. Hence the variety generated by RRA is a proper subvariety of the variety RA. In
1955, Alfred Tarski showed that RRA is itself a variety. In 1964, Donald Monk showed that RRA has no nite
axiomatization, unlike RA, which is nitely axiomatized by denition.
Q0: AA I
Q1: BB I
Q2: AB = 1
Essentially these axioms imply that the universe has a (non-surjective) pairing relation whose projections are A and
B. It is a theorem that every QRA is a RRA (Proof by Maddux, see Tarski & Givant 1987: 8.4(iii) ).
Every QRA is representable (Tarski and Givant 1987). That not every relation algebra is representable is a fun-
damental way RA diers from QRA and Boolean algebras, which, by Stones representation theorem for Boolean
algebras, are always representable as sets of subsets of some set, closed under union, intersection, and complement.
53.4 Examples
1. Any Boolean algebra can be turned into a RA by interpreting conjunction as composition (the monoid multipli-
cation ), i.e. xy is dened as xy. This interpretation requires that converse interpret identity ( = y), and that both
residuals y\x and x/y interpret the conditional yx (i.e., yx).
2. The motivating example of a relation algebra depends on the denition of a binary relation R on a set X as any
subset R X, where X is the Cartesian square of X. The power set 2X consisting of all binary relations on X is
a Boolean algebra. While 2X can be made a relation algebra by taking RS = RS, as per example (1) above, the
standard interpretation of is instead x(RS)z = y:xRy.ySz. That is, the ordered pair (x,z) belongs to the relation RS
just when there exists y X such that (x,y) R and (y,z) S. This interpretation uniquely determines R\S as consisting
of all pairs (y,z) such that for all x X, if xRy then xSz. Dually, S/R consists of all pairs (x,y) such that for all z X,
if yRz then xSz. The translation = (y\I) then establishes the converse R of R as consisting of all pairs (y,x) such
that (x,y) R.
3. An important generalization of the previous example is the power set 2E where E X is any equivalence relation on
the set X. This is a generalization because X is itself an equivalence relation, namely the complete relation consisting
of all pairs. While 2E is not a subalgebra of 2X when E X (since in that case it does not contain the relation X,
the top element 1 being E instead of X), it is nevertheless turned into a relation algebra using the same denitions
of the operations. Its importance resides in the denition of a representable relation algebra as any relation algebra
isomorphic to a subalgebra of the relation algebra 2E for some equivalence relation E on some set. The previous
section says more about the relevant metamathematics.
4. Let G be group. Then the power set 2G is a relation algebra with the obvious boolean algebra operations, com-
position given by the product of group subsets, the converse by the inverse subset ( A1 = {a1 | a A} ), and
the identity by the singleton subset {e} . There is a relation algebra homomorphism embedding 2G in 2GG which
sends each subset A G to the relation RA = {(g, h) G G | h Ag} . The image of this homomorphism is
the set of all right-invariant relations on G .
5. If group sum or product interprets composition, group inverse interprets converse, group identity interprets I, and
if R is a one-to-one correspondence, so that RR = RR = I,[3] then L is a group as well as a monoid. B4-B7 become
204 CHAPTER 53. RELATION ALGEBRA
well-known theorems of group theory, so that RA becomes a proper extension of group theory as well as of Boolean
algebra.
53.6 Software
RelMICS / Relational Methods in Computer Science maintained by Wolfram Kahl
53.8 Footnotes
[1] Alfred Tarski (1948) Abstract: Representation Problems for Relation Algebras, Bulletin of the AMS 54: 80.
[2] Chris Brink; Wolfram Kahl; Gunther Schmidt (1997). Relational Methods in Computer Science. Springer. pp. 4 and 8.
ISBN 978-3-211-82971-4.
[4] Korselt did not publish his nding. It was rst published in Leopold Loewenheim (1915) "ber Mglichkeiten im Rela-
tivkalkl, Mathematische Annalen 76: 447470. Translated as On possibilities in the calculus of relatives in Jean van
Heijenoort, 1967. A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 18791931. Harvard Univ. Press: 228251.
53.9 References
Rudolf Carnap (1958) Introduction to Symbolic Logic and its Applications. Dover Publications.
Givant, Steven (2006). The calculus of relations as a foundation for mathematics. Journal of Automated
Reasoning. 37: 277322. doi:10.1007/s10817-006-9062-x.
Leon Henkin, Alfred Tarski, and Monk, J. D., 1971. Cylindric Algebras, Part 1, and 1985, Part 2. North
Holland.
Hirsch R., and Hodkinson, I., 2002, Relation Algebra by Games, vol. 147 in Studies in Logic and the Foundations
of Mathematics. Elsevier Science.
Jnsson, Bjarni; Tsinakis, Constantine (1993). Relation algebras as residuated Boolean algebras. Algebra
Universalis. 30: 46978. doi:10.1007/BF01195378.
Maddux, Roger (1991). The Origin of Relation Algebras in the Development and Axiomatization of the
Calculus of Relations (PDF). Studia Logica. 50 (34): 421455. doi:10.1007/BF00370681.
53.10. EXTERNAL LINKS 205
--------, 2006. Relation Algebras, vol. 150 in Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Elsevier
Science.
Patrick Suppes, 1960. Axiomatic Set Theory. Van Nostrand. Dover reprint, 1972. Chapter 3.
Richard Bird, Oege de Moor, Paul Hoogendijk, "Generic Programming with Relations and Functors."
R.P. de Freitas and Viana, "A Completeness Result for Relation Algebra with Binders."
Peter Jipsen:
Relation algebras. In Mathematical structures. If there are problems with LaTeX, see an old HTML
version here.
"Foundations of Relations and Kleene Algebra."
"Computer Aided Investigations of Relation Algebras."
"A Gentzen System And Decidability For Residuated Lattices.
Vaughan Pratt:
Kahl, Wolfram, and Schmidt, Gunther, "Exploring (Finite) Relation Algebras Using Tools Written in Haskell."
See homepage of the whole project.
Chapter 54
Relation construction
In logic and mathematics, relation construction and relational constructibility have to do with the ways that one
relation is determined by an indexed family or a sequence of other relations, called the relation dataset. The relation
in the focus of consideration is called the faciendum. The relation dataset typically consists of a specied relation
over sets of relations, called the constructor, the factor, or the method of construction, plus a specied set of other
relations, called the faciens, the ingredients, or the makings.
Relation composition and relation reduction are special cases of relation constructions.
Relation composition
Relation reduction
206
Chapter 55
Representation (mathematics)
In mathematics, representation is a very general relationship that expresses similarities between objects. Roughly
speaking, a collection Y of mathematical objects may be said to represent another collection X of objects, provided
that the properties and relationships existing among the representing objects yi conform in some consistent way to
those existing among the corresponding represented objects xi. Somewhat more formally, for a set of properties
and relations, a -representation of some structure X is a structure Y that is the image of X under a s homomorphism
that preserves . The label representation is sometimes also applied to the homomorphism itself.
207
208 CHAPTER 55. REPRESENTATION (MATHEMATICS)
There are also geometric representations that are not based on containment. Indeed, one of the best studied classes
among these are the interval orders,[6] which represent the partial order in terms of what might be called disjoint
precedence of intervals on the real line: each element x of the poset is represented by an interval [x1 , x2 ] such that for
any y and z in the poset, y is below z if and only if y2 < z1 .
55.2.3 Polysemy
Under certain circumstances, a single function f:X Y is at once an isomorphism from several mathematical struc-
tures on X. Since each of those structures may be thought of, intuitively, as a meaning of the image Yone of the
things that Y is trying to tell usthis phenomenon is called polysemy, a term borrowed from linguistics. Examples
include:
intersection polysemypairs of graphs G1 and G2 on a common vertex set V that can be simultaneously
represented by a single collection of sets Sv such that any distinct vertices u and w in V...
competition polysemymotivated by the study of ecological food webs, in which pairs of species may have
prey in common or have predators in common. A pair of graphs G1 and G2 on one vertex set is competition
polysemic if and only if there exists a single directed graph D on the same vertex set such that any distinct
vertices u and v...
are adjacent in G1 if and only if there is a vertex w such that both uw and vw are arcs in D,
and
are adjacent in G2 if and only if there is a vertex w such that both wu and wv are arcs in D.[8]
interval polysemypairs of posets P 1 and P 2 on a common ground set that can be simultaneously represented
by a single collection of real intervals that is an interval-order representation of P 1 and an interval-containment
representation of P 2 .[9]
55.4 References
[1] McKee, Terry A.; McMorris, F. R. (1999), Topics in Intersection Graph Theory, SIAM Monographs on Discrete
Mathematics and Applications, Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, ISBN 0-89871-430-
3, MR 1672910
[2] Erds, Paul; Goodman, A. W.; Psa, Louis (1966), The representation of a graph by set intersections, Canadian Journal
of Mathematics, 18 (1): 106112, MR 0186575, doi:10.4153/cjm-1966-014-3
[3] Biggs, Norman (1994), Algebraic Graph Theory, Cambridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 978-0-521-45897-9, MR 1271140
[4] Trotter, William T. (1992), Combinatorics and Partially Ordered Sets: Dimension Theory, Johns Hopkins Series in the
Mathematical Sciences, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 978-0-8018-4425-6, MR 1169299
[5] Scheinerman, Edward (1991), A note on planar graphs and circle orders, SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics,
4 (3): 448451, MR 1105950, doi:10.1137/0404040
[6] Fishburn, Peter C. (1985), Interval Orders and Interval Graphs: A Study of Partially Ordered Sets, Wiley-Interscience
Series in Discrete Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-471-81284-5, MR 0776781
55.4. REFERENCES 209
[7] Tanenbaum, Paul J. (1999), Simultaneous intersection representation of pairs of graphs, Journal of Graph Theory,
32 (2): 171190, MR 1709659, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0118(199910)32:2<171::AID-JGT7>3.0.CO;2-N
[8] Fischermann, Miranca; Knoben, Werner; Kremer, Dirk; Rautenbachh, Dieter (2004), Competition polysemy,
Discrete Mathematics, 282 (13): 251255, MR 2059526, doi:10.1016/j.disc.2003.11.014
[9] Tanenbaum, Paul J. (1996), Simultaneous representation of interval and interval-containment orders, Order, 13
(4): 339350, MR 1452517, doi:10.1007/BF00405593
Chapter 56
Semiorder
In order theory, a branch of mathematics, a semiorder is a type of ordering that may be determined for a set of
items with numerical scores by declaring two items to be incomparable when their scores are within a given margin
of error of each other, and by using the numerical comparison of their scores when those scores are suciently far
apart. Semiorders were introduced and applied in mathematical psychology by Luce (1956) as a model of human
preference without the assumption that indierence is transitive. They generalize strict weak orderings, form a special
case of partial orders and interval orders, and can be characterized among the partial orders by two forbidden four-
item suborders.
56.1 Denition
Let X be a set of items, and let < be a binary relation on X. Items x and y are said to be incomparable, written here as
x ~ y, if neither x < y nor y < x is true. Then the pair (X,<) is a semiorder if it satises the following three axioms:[1]
For all x and y, it is not possible for both x < y and y < x to be true. That is, < must be an irreexive,
antisymmetric relation
For all x, y, z, and w, if it is true that x < y, y ~ z, and z < w, then it must also be true that x < w.
For all x, y, z, and w, if it is true that x < y, y < z, and y ~ w, then it cannot also be true that x ~ w and z ~ w
simultaneously.
It follows from the rst axiom that x ~ x, and therefore the second axiom (with y = z) implies that < is a transitive
relation.
One may dene a partial order (X,) from a semiorder (X,<) by declaring that x y whenever either x < y or x = y. Of
the axioms that a partial order is required to obey, reexivity follows automatically from this denition, antisymmetry
follows from the rst semiorder axiom, and transitivity follows from the second semiorder axiom. Conversely, from
a partial order dened in this way, the semiorder may be recovered by declaring that x < y whenever x y and x
y. The rst of the semiorder axioms listed above follows automatically from the axioms dening a partial order, but
the others do not. The second and third semiorder axioms forbid partial orders of four items forming two disjoint
chains: the second axiom forbids two chains of two items each, while the third item forbids a three-item chain with
one unrelated item.
56.2 Utility
The original motivation for introducing semiorders was to model human preferences without assuming (as strict weak
orderings do) that incomparability is a transitive relation. For instance, if x, y, and z represent three quantities of the
same material, and x and z dier by the smallest amount that is perceptible as a dierence, while y is halfway between
the two of them, then it is reasonable for a preference to exist between x and z but not between the other two pairs,
violating transitivity.[2]
210
56.2. UTILITY 211
An example of a semiorder, shown by its Hasse diagram. The horizontal blue lines indicate the spacing of the y-coordinates of the
points; two points are comparable when their y coordinates dier by at least one unit.
Thus, suppose that X is a set of items, and u is a utility function that maps the members of X to real numbers. A strict
weak ordering can be dened on x by declaring two items to be incomparable when they have equal utilities, and
otherwise using the numerical comparison, but this necessarily leads to a transitive incomparability relation. Instead,
if one sets a numerical threshold (which may be normalized to 1) such that utilities within that threshold of each other
are declared incomparable, then a semiorder arises.
Specically, dene a binary relation < from X and u by setting x < y whenever u(x) u(y) 1. Then (X,<) is a
semiorder.[3] It may equivalently be dened as the interval order dened by the intervals [u(x),u(x) + 1].[4]
In the other direction, not every semiorder can be dened from numerical utilities in this way. For instance, if a
semiorder (X,<) includes an uncountable totally ordered subset then there do not exist suciently many suciently
well-spaced real-numbers to represent this subset numerically. However, every nite semiorder can be dened from
a utility function.[5] Fishburn (1973) supplies a precise characterization of the semiorders that may be dened nu-
212 CHAPTER 56. SEMIORDER
merically.
2n
( )
1
n+1 n , [6]
1, 1, 3, 19, 183, 2371, 38703, 763099, 17648823, ... (sequence A006531 in the OEIS).[7]
56.4 Notes
[1] Luce (1956) describes an equivalent set of four axioms, the rst two of which combine the denition of incomparability
and the rst axiom listed here.
[3] Luce (1956), Theorem 3 describes a more general situation in which the threshold for comparability between two utilities
is a function of the utility rather than being identically 1.
[5] This result is typically credited to Scott & Suppes (1958); see, e.g., Rabinovitch (1977). However, Luce (1956), Theorem
2 proves a more general statement, that a nite semiorder can be dened from a utility function and a threshold function
whenever a certain underlying weak order can be dened numerically. For nite semiorders, it is trivial that the weak order
can be dened numerically with a unit threshold function.
56.5 References
Avery, Peter (1992), An algorithmic proof that semiorders are representable, Journal of Algorithms, 13 (1):
144147, MR 1146337, doi:10.1016/0196-6774(92)90010-A.
Brightwell, Graham R. (1989), Semiorders and the 1/32/3 conjecture, Order, 5 (4): 369380, doi:10.1007/BF00353656.
Chandon, J.-L.; Lemaire, J.; Pouget, J. (1978), Dnombrement des quasi-ordres sur un ensemble ni, Centre
de Mathmatique Sociale. cole Pratique des Hautes tudes. Mathmatiques et Sciences Humaines (62): 6180,
83, MR 517680.
Doignon, Jean-Paul; Falmagne, Jean-Claude (1997), Well-graded families of relations, Discrete Mathematics,
173 (1-3): 3544, MR 1468838, doi:10.1016/S0012-365X(96)00095-7.
Fishburn, Peter C. (1970), Intransitive indierence with unequal indierence intervals, J. Mathematical
Psychology, 7: 144149, MR 0253942, doi:10.1016/0022-2496(70)90062-3.
Fishburn, Peter C. (1973), Interval representations for interval orders and semiorders, J. Mathematical Psy-
chology, 10: 91105, MR 0316322, doi:10.1016/0022-2496(73)90007-2.
Fishburn, Peter C.; Trotter, W. T. (1992), Linear extensions of semiorders: a maximization problem, Discrete
Mathematics, 103 (1): 2540, MR 1171114, doi:10.1016/0012-365X(92)90036-F.
Kim, K. H.; Roush, F. W. (1978), Enumeration of isomorphism classes of semiorders, Journal of Combina-
torics, Information &System Sciences, 3 (2): 5861, MR 538212.
Luce, R. Duncan (1956), Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination, Econometrica, 24: 178191,
JSTOR 1905751, MR 0078632, doi:10.2307/1905751.
Rabinovitch, Issie (1977), The Scott-Suppes theorem on semiorders, J. Mathematical Psychology, 15 (2):
209212, MR 0437404, doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90030-x.
Rabinovitch, Issie (1978), The dimension of semiorders, Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series A, 25 (1):
5061, MR 0498294, doi:10.1016/0097-3165(78)90030-4.
Roberts, Fred S. (1969), Indierence graphs, Proof Techniques in Graph Theory (Proc. Second Ann Arbor
Graph Theory Conf., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1968), Academic Press, New York, pp. 139146, MR 0252267.
Scott, Dana; Suppes, Patrick (1958), Foundational aspects of theories of measurement, The Journal of Sym-
bolic Logic, 23: 113128, MR 0115919, doi:10.2307/2964389.
Separoid
In mathematics, a separoid is a binary relation between disjoint sets which is stable as an ideal in the canonical order
induced by inclusion. Many mathematical objects which appear to be quite dierent, nd a common generalisation in
the framework of separoids; e.g., graphs, congurations of convex sets, oriented matroids, and polytopes. Any count-
able category is an induced subcategory of separoids when they are endowed with homomorphisms (viz., mappings
that preserve the so-called minimal Radon partitions).
In this general framework, some results and invariants of dierent categories turn out to be special cases of the
same aspect; e.g., the pseudoachromatic number from graph theory and the Tverberg theorem from combinatorial
convexity are simply two faces of the same aspect, namely, complete colouring of separoids.
A | B B | A,
A | B A B = ,
A | B and A A A | B.
A related pair A | B is called a separation and we often say that A is separated from B. It is enough to know the
maximal separations to reconstruct the separoid.
A mapping : S T is a morphism of separoids if the preimages of separations are separations; that is, for
A, B T
A | B 1 (A) | 1 (B).
57.2 Examples
Examples of separoids can be found in almost every branch of mathematics. Here we list just a few.
1. Given a graph G=(V,E), we can dene a separoid on its vertices by saying that two (disjoint) subsets of V, say A
and B, are separated if there are no edges going from one to the other; i.e.,
A | B a A and b B : ab E.
214
57.3. THE BASIC LEMMA 215
2. Given an oriented matroid M = (E,T), given in terms of its topes T, we can dene a separoid on E by saying that
two subsets are separated if they are contained in opposite signs of a tope. In other words, the topes of an oriented
matroid are the maximal separations of a separoid. This example includes, of course, all directed graphs.
3. Given a family of objects in an Euclidean space, we can dene a separoid in it by saying that two subsets are
separated if there exists a hyperplane that separates them; i.e., leaving them in the two opposite sides of it.
4. Given a topological space, we can dene a separoid saying that two subsets are separated if there exist two disjoint
open sets which contains them (one for each of them).
57.4 References
Strausz Ricardo; Separoides. Situs, serie B, no. 5 (1998), Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico.
Arocha Jorge Luis, Bracho Javier, Montejano Luis, Oliveros Deborah, Strausz Ricardo; Separoids, their cat-
egories and a Hadwiger-type theorem for transversals. Discrete and Computational Geometry 27 (2002), no.
3, 377385.
Strausz Ricardo; Separoids and a Tverberg-type problem. Geombinatorics 15 (2005), no. 2, 7992.
Montellano-Ballesteros Juan Jose, Por Attila, Strausz Ricardo; Tverberg-type theorems for separoids. Dis-
crete and Computational Geometry 35 (2006), no.3, 513523.
Neetil Jaroslav, Strausz Ricardo; Universality of separoids. Archivum Mathematicum (Brno) 42 (2006), no.
1, 85101.
Bracho Javier, Strausz Ricardo; Two geometric representations of separoids. Periodica Mathematica Hun-
garica 53 (2006), no. 1-2, 115120.
Sequential composition
In computer science, the process calculi (or process algebras) are a diverse family of related approaches for for-
mally modelling concurrent systems. Process calculi provide a tool for the high-level description of interactions,
communications, and synchronizations between a collection of independent agents or processes. They also provide
algebraic laws that allow process descriptions to be manipulated and analyzed, and permit formal reasoning about
equivalences between processes (e.g., using bisimulation). Leading examples of process calculi include CSP, CCS,
ACP, and LOTOS.[1] More recent additions to the family include the -calculus, the ambient calculus, PEPA, the
fusion calculus and the join-calculus.
Describing processes and systems using a small collection of primitives, and operators for combining those
primitives.
Dening algebraic laws for the process operators, which allow process expressions to be manipulated using
equational reasoning.
sequentialization of interactions
216
58.2. MATHEMATICS OF PROCESSES 217
Parallel composition of two processes P and Q , usually written P |Q , is the key primitive distinguishing the process
calculi from sequential models of computation. Parallel composition allows computation in P and Q to proceed
simultaneously and independently. But it also allows interaction, that is synchronisation and ow of information from
P to Q (or vice versa) on a channel shared by both. Crucially, an agent or process can be connected to more than one
channel at a time.
Channels may be synchronous or asynchronous. In the case of a synchronous channel, the agent sending a message
waits until another agent has received the message. Asynchronous channels do not require any such synchronization.
In some process calculi (notably the -calculus) channels themselves can be sent in messages through (other) channels,
allowing the topology of process interconnections to change. Some process calculi also allow channels to be created
during the execution of a computation.
58.2.2 Communication
Interaction can be (but isn't always) a directed ow of information. That is, input and output can be distinguished as
dual interaction primitives. Process calculi that make such distinctions typically dene an input operator (e.g. x(v)
) and an output operator (e.g. xy ), both of which name an interaction point (here x ) that is used to synchronise
with a dual interaction primitive.
Information should be exchanged, it will ow from the outputting to the inputting process. The output primitive will
specify the data to be sent. In xy , this data is y . Similarly, if an input expects to receive data, one or more bound
variables will act as place-holders to be substituted by data, when it arrives. In x(v) , v plays that role. The choice of
the kind of data that can be exchanged in an interaction is one of the key features that distinguishes dierent process
calculi.
Sometimes interactions must be temporally ordered. For example, it might be desirable to specify algorithms such as:
rst receive some data on x and then send that data on y . Sequential composition can be used for such purposes. It is
well known from other models of computation. In process calculi, the sequentialisation operator is usually integrated
with input or output, or both. For example, the process x(v) P will wait for an input on x . Only when this input
has occurred will the process P be activated, with the received data through x substituted for identier v .
The key operational reduction rule, containing the computational essence of process calculi, can be given solely in
terms of parallel composition, sequentialization, input, and output. The details of this reduction vary among the
calculi, but the essence remains roughly the same. The reduction rule is:
xy P | x(v) Q P | Q[y/v ]
1. The process xy P sends a message, here y , along the channel x . Dually, the process x(v) Q receives that
message on channel x .
2. Once the message has been sent, xy P becomes the process P , while x(v) Q becomes the process Q[y/v ]
, which is Q with the place-holder v substituted by y , the data received on x .
The class of processes that P is allowed to range over as the continuation of the output operation substantially inu-
ences the properties of the calculus.
218 CHAPTER 58. SEQUENTIAL COMPOSITION
58.2.5 Hiding
Processes do not limit the number of connections that can be made at a given interaction point. But interaction points
allow interference (i.e. interaction). For the synthesis of compact, minimal and compositional systems, the ability to
restrict interference is crucial. Hiding operations allow control of the connections made between interaction points
when composing agents in parallel. Hiding can be denoted in a variety of ways. For example, in the -calculus the
hiding of a name x in P can be expressed as ( x)P , while in CSP it might be written as P \ {x} .
The operations presented so far describe only nite interaction and are consequently insucient for full computability,
which includes non-terminating behaviour. Recursion and replication are operations that allow nite descriptions
of innite behaviour. Recursion is well known from the sequential world. Replication !P can be understood as
abbreviating the parallel composition of a countably innite number of P processes:
!P = P |!P
Process calculi generally also include a null process (variously denoted as nil , 0 , STOP , , or some other appropriate
symbol) which has no interaction points. It is utterly inactive and its sole purpose is to act as the inductive anchor on
top of which more interesting processes can be generated.
58.4 History
In the rst half of the 20th century, various formalisms were proposed to capture the informal concept of a com-
putable function, with -recursive functions, Turing machines and the lambda calculus possibly being the best-known
examples today. The surprising fact that they are essentially equivalent, in the sense that they are all encodable into
each other, supports the Church-Turing thesis. Another shared feature is more rarely commented on: they all are
most readily understood as models of sequential computation. The subsequent consolidation of computer science re-
quired a more subtle formulation of the notion of computation, in particular explicit representations of concurrency
and communication. Models of concurrency such as the process calculi, Petri nets in 1962, and the actor model in
1973 emerged from this line of inquiry.
Research on process calculi began in earnest with Robin Milner's seminal work on the Calculus of Communicating
Systems (CCS) during the period from 1973 to 1980. C.A.R. Hoare's Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP)
rst appeared in 1978, and was subsequently developed into a full-edged process calculus during the early 1980s.
There was much cross-fertilization of ideas between CCS and CSP as they developed. In 1982 Jan Bergstra and
Jan Willem Klop began work on what came to be known as the Algebra of Communicating Processes (ACP), and
introduced the term process algebra to describe their work.[1] CCS, CSP, and ACP constitute the three major branches
of the process calculi family: the majority of the other process calculi can trace their roots to one of these three calculi.
Finding well-behaved subcalculi of a given process calculus. This is valuable because (1) most calculi are fairly
wild in the sense that they are rather general and not much can be said about arbitrary processes; and (2)
computational applications rarely exhaust the whole of a calculus. Rather they use only processes that are very
constrained in form. Constraining the shape of processes is mostly studied by way of type systems.
Logics for processes that allow one to reason about (essentially) arbitrary properties of processes, following the
ideas of Hoare logic.
Behavioural theory: what does it mean for two processes to be the same? How can we decide whether two
processes are dierent or not? Can we nd representatives for equivalence classes of processes? Generally,
processes are considered to be the same if no context, that is other processes running in parallel, can detect a
dierence. Unfortunately, making this intuition precise is subtle and mostly yields unwieldy characterisations of
equality (which in most cases must also be undecidable, as a consequence of the halting problem). Bisimulations
are a technical tool that aids reasoning about process equivalences.
Expressivity of calculi. Programming experience shows that certain problems are easier to solve in some
languages than in others. This phenomenon calls for a more precise characterisation of the expressivity of
calculi modeling computation than that aorded by the Church-Turing thesis. One way of doing this is to
consider encodings between two formalisms and see what properties encodings can potentially preserve. The
more properties can be preserved, the more expressive the target of the encoding is said to be. For process
calculi, the celebrated results are that the synchronous -calculus is more expressive than its asynchronous
variant, has the same expressive power as the higher-order -calculus, but is less than the ambient calculus.
Using process calculus to model biological systems (stochastic -calculus, BioAmbients, Beta Binders, BioPEPA,
Brane calculus). It is thought by some that the compositionality oered by process-theoretic tools can help bi-
ologists to organise their knowledge more formally.
CADP
Concurrency Workbench
mCRL2 toolset
58.9 References
[1] Baeten, J.C.M. (2004). A brief history of process algebra (PDF). Rapport CSR 04-02. Vakgroep Informatica, Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven.
[2] Pierce, Benjamin. Foundational Calculi for Programming Languages. The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.
CRC Press. pp. 21902207. ISBN 0-8493-2909-4.
[3] Baeten, J.C.M.; Bravetti, M. (August 2005). A Generic Process Algebra. Algebraic Process Calculi: The First Twenty
Five Years and Beyond (BRICS Notes Series NS-05-3). Bertinoro, Forl`, Italy: BRICS, Department of Computer Science,
University of Aarhus. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
[4] Baeten, J. C. M.; Middelburg, C. A. Process algebra with timing: Real time and discrete time. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.42.729
.
[5] Mazurkiewicz, Antoni (1995). Introduction to Trace Theory. In Diekert, V.; Rozenberg, G. The Book of Traces
(PostScript). Singapore: World Scientic. pp. 341. ISBN 981-02-2058-8.
This book has been updated by Jim Davies at the Oxford University Computing Laboratory and the new
edition is available for download as a PDF le at the Using CSP website.
Series composition
Parallel composition
In order-theoretic mathematics, a series-parallel partial order is a partially ordered set built up from smaller series-
221
222 CHAPTER 59. SERIES-PARALLEL PARTIAL ORDER
59.1 Denition
Consider P and Q, two partially ordered sets. The series composition of P and Q, written P; Q,[7] P * Q,[2] or P
Q,[1] is the partially ordered set whose elements are the disjoint union of the elements of P and Q. In P; Q, two elements
x and y that both belong to P or that both belong to Q have the same order relation that they do in P or Q respectively.
However, for every pair x, y where x belongs to P and y belongs to Q, there is an additional order relation x y in the
series composition. Series composition is an associative operation: one can write P; Q; R as the series composition
of three orders, without ambiguity about how to combine them pairwise, because both of the parenthesizations (P;
Q); R and P; (Q; R) describe the same partial order. However, it is not a commutative operation, because switching
the roles of P and Q will produce a dierent partial order that reverses the order relations of pairs with one element
in P and one in Q.[1]
The parallel composition of P and Q, written P || Q,[7] P + Q,[2] or P Q,[1] is dened similarly, from the disjoint
union of the elements in P and the elements in Q, with pairs of elements that both belong to P or both to Q having
the same order as they do in P or Q respectively. In P || Q, a pair x, y is incomparable whenever x belongs to P and y
belongs to Q. Parallel composition is both commutative and associative.[1]
The class of series-parallel partial orders is the set of partial orders that can be built up from single-element partial
orders using these two operations. Equivalently, it is the smallest set of partial orders that includes the single-element
partial order and is closed under the series and parallel composition operations.[1][2]
A weak order is the series parallel partial order obtained from a sequence of composition operations in which all
of the parallel compositions are performed rst, and then the results of these compositions are combined using only
series compositions.[2]
It is known that a partial order P has order dimension two if and only if there exists a conjugate order Q on the
same elements, with the property that any two distinct elements x and y are comparable on exactly one of these two
orders. In the case of series parallel partial orders, a conjugate order that is itself series parallel may be obtained by
performing a sequence of composition operations in the same order as the ones dening P on the same elements,
but performing a series composition for each parallel composition in the decomposition of P and vice versa. More
strongly, although a partial order may have many dierent conjugates, every conjugate of a series parallel partial order
must itself be series parallel.[2]
(|P | + |Q|)!
L(P ||Q) = L(P )L(Q),
|P |!|Q|!
so the number of linear extensions may be calculated using an expression tree with the same form as the decomposition
tree of the given series-parallel order.[2]
224 CHAPTER 59. SERIES-PARALLEL PARTIAL ORDER
59.6 Applications
Mannila & Meek (2000) use series-parallel partial orders as a model for the sequences of events in time series data.
They describe machine learning algorithms for inferring models of this type, and demonstrate its eectiveness at
inferring course prerequisites from student enrollment data and at modeling web browser usage patterns.[6]
Amer et al. (1994) argue that series-parallel partial orders are a good t for modeling the transmission sequencing
requirements of multimedia presentations. They use the formula for computing the number of linear extensions of a
series-parallel partial order as the basis for analyzing multimedia transmission algorithms.[7]
Choudhary et al. (1994) use series-parallel partial orders to model the task dependencies in a dataow model of
massive data processing for computer vision. They show that, by using series-parallel orders for this problem, it is
possible to eciently construct an optimized schedule that assigns dierent tasks to dierent processors of a parallel
computing system in order to optimize the throughput of the system.[8]
A class of orderings somewhat more general than series-parallel partial orders is provided by PQ trees, data structures
that have been applied in algorithms for testing whether a graph is planar and recognizing interval graphs.[12] A P
node of a PQ tree allows all possible orderings of its children, like a parallel composition of partial orders, while a Q
node requires the children to occur in a xed linear ordering, like a series composition of partial orders. However,
unlike series-parallel partial orders, PQ trees allow the linear ordering of any Q node to be reversed.
59.8 References
[1] Bechet, Denis; De Groote, Philippe; Retor, Christian (1997), A complete axiomatisation for the inclusion of series-
parallel partial orders, Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1232, Springer-Verlag,
pp. 230240, doi:10.1007/3-540-62950-5_74.
[2] Mhring, Rolf H. (1989), Computationally tractable classes of ordered sets, in Rival, Ivan, Algorithms and Order: Pro-
ceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Algorithms and Order, Ottawa, Canada, May 31-June 13, 1987, NATO
Science Series C, 255, Springer-Verlag, pp. 105194, ISBN 978-0-7923-0007-6.
[3] Valdes, Jacobo; Tarjan, Robert E.; Lawler, Eugene L. (1982), The recognition of series parallel digraphs, SIAM Journal
on Computing, 11 (2): 298313, doi:10.1137/0211023.
[4] Jung, H. A. (1978), On a class of posets and the corresponding comparability graphs, Journal of Combinatorial Theory,
Series B, 24 (2): 125133, MR 0491356, doi:10.1016/0095-8956(78)90013-8.
[5] Lawler, Eugene L. (1978), Sequencing jobs to minimize total weighted completion time subject to precedence constraints,
Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 2: 7590, MR 0495156, doi:10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70323-6.
[6] Mannila, Heikki; Meek, Christopher (2000), Global partial orders from sequential data, Proc. 6th ACM SIGKDD Inter-
national Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2000), pp. 161168, doi:10.1145/347090.347122.
[7] Amer, Paul D.; Chassot, Christophe; Connolly, Thomas J.; Diaz, Michel; Conrad, Phillip (1994), Partial-order transport
service for multimedia and other applications, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 2 (5): 440456, doi:10.1109/90.336326.
[8] Choudhary, A. N.; Narahari, B.; Nicol, D. M.; Simha, R. (1994), Optimal processor assignment for a class of pipelined
computations, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 5 (4): 439445, doi:10.1109/71.273050.
[9] Furnas, George W.; Zacks, Je (1994), Multitrees: enriching and reusing hierarchical structure, Proc. SIGCHI conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '94), pp. 330336, doi:10.1145/191666.191778.
[10] Ma, Tze-Heng; Spinrad, Jeremy (1991), Transitive closure for restricted classes of partial orders, Order, 8 (2): 175183,
doi:10.1007/BF00383402.
[11] Brightwell, Graham R.; Winkler, Peter (1991), Counting linear extensions, Order, 8 (3): 225242, doi:10.1007/BF00383444.
[12] Booth, Kellogg S.; Lueker, George S. (1976), Testing for the consecutive ones property, interval graphs, and graph
planarity using PQ-tree algorithms, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 13 (3): 335379, doi:10.1016/S0022-
0000(76)80045-1.
Chapter 60
Surjective function
In mathematics, a function f from a set X to a set Y is surjective (or onto), or a surjection, if for every element y in
the codomain Y of f there is at least one element x in the domain X of f such that f(x) = y. It is not required that x
is unique; the function f may map one or more elements of X to the same element of Y.
The term surjective and the related terms injective and bijective were introduced by Nicolas Bourbaki,[1] a group
of mainly French 20th-century mathematicians who under this pseudonym wrote a series of books presenting an
exposition of modern advanced mathematics, beginning in 1935. The French prex sur means over or above and
relates to the fact that the image of the domain of a surjective function completely covers the functions codomain.
Any function induces a surjection by restricting its codomain to its range. Every surjective function has a right inverse,
and every function with a right inverse is necessarily a surjection. The composite of surjective functions is always
surjective. Any function can be decomposed into a surjection and an injection.
60.1 Denition
For more details on notation, see Function (mathematics) Notation.
A surjective function is a function whose image is equal to its codomain. Equivalently, a function f with domain
X and codomain Y is surjective if for every y in Y there exists at least one x in X with f (x) = y . Surjections are
sometimes denoted by a two-headed rightwards arrow (U+21A0 RIGHTWARDS TWO HEADED ARROW),[2]
as in f : X Y.
Symbolically,
y Y, x X, f (x) = y
60.2 Examples
For any set X, the identity function idX on X is surjective.
The function f : Z {0,1} dened by f(n) = n mod 2 (that is, even integers are mapped to 0 and odd integers to 1)
is surjective.
The function f : R R dened by f(x) = 2x + 1 is surjective (and even bijective), because for every real number y
we have an x such that f(x) = y: an appropriate x is (y 1)/2.
The function f : R R dened by f(x) = x3 3x is surjective, because the pre-image of any real number y is the
solution set of the cubic polynomial equation x3 3x y = 0 and every cubic polynomial with real coecients has at
225
226 CHAPTER 60. SURJECTIVE FUNCTION
X Y
1 D
2 B
3 C
A surjective function from domain X to codomain Y. The function is surjective because every point in the codomain is the value of
f(x) for at least one point x in the domain.
least one real root. However, this function is not injective (and hence not bijective) since e.g. the pre-image of y = 2
is {x = 1, x = 2}. (In fact, the pre-image of this function for every y, 2 y 2 has more than one element.)
The function g : R R dened by g(x) = x2 is not surjective, because there is no real number x such that x2 = 1.
However, the function g : R R0 + dened by g(x) = x2 (with restricted codomain) is surjective because for every y
in the nonnegative real codomain Y there is at least one x in the real domain X such that x2 = y.
The natural logarithm function ln : (0,+) R is a surjective and even bijective mapping from the set of positive
real numbers to the set of all real numbers. Its inverse, the exponential function, is not surjective as its range is the set
of positive real numbers and its domain is usually dened to be the set of all real numbers. The matrix exponential
is not surjective when seen as a map from the space of all nn matrices to itself. It is, however, usually dened as a
map from the space of all nn matrices to the general linear group of degree n, i.e. the group of all nn invertible
matrices. Under this denition the matrix exponential is surjective for complex matrices, although still not surjective
for real matrices.
The projection from a cartesian product A B to one of its factors is surjective unless the other factor is empty.
In a 3D video game vectors are projected onto a 2D at screen by means of a surjective function.
60.3. PROPERTIES 227
x f(x)
X Y
f:XY
A non-surjective function from domain X to codomain Y. The smaller oval inside Y is the image (also called range) of f. This
function is not surjective, because the image does not ll the whole codomain. In other words, Y is colored in a two-step process:
First, for every x in X, the point f(x) is colored yellow; Second, all the rest of the points in Y, that are not yellow, are colored blue.
The function f is surjective only if there are no blue points.
60.3 Properties
The function g : Y X is said to be a right inverse of the function f : X Y if f(g(y)) = y for every y in Y (g can be
undone by f). In other words, g is a right inverse of f if the composition f o g of g and f in that order is the identity
function on the domain Y of g. The function g need not be a complete inverse of f because the composition in the
other order, g o f, may not be the identity function on the domain X of f. In other words, f can undo or "reverse" g,
but cannot necessarily be reversed by it.
Every function with a right inverse is necessarily a surjection. The proposition that every surjective function has a
right inverse is equivalent to the axiom of choice.
If f : X Y is surjective and B is a subset of Y, then f(f 1 (B)) = B. Thus, B can be recovered from its preimage
f 1 (B).
For example, in the rst illustration, above, there is some function g such that g(C) = 4. There is also some function
f such that f(4) = C. It doesn't matter that g(C) can also equal 3; it only matters that f reverses g.
228 CHAPTER 60. SURJECTIVE FUNCTION
y y
y Y
im f
y Y
im f
x x
x X
x X1 x X2
f :X Y
f : X1 Y1 f : X2 Y2
y f x
y f x
Interpretation for surjective functions in the Cartesian plane, dened by the mapping f : X Y, where y = f(x), X = domain of
function, Y = range of function. Every element in the range is mapped onto from an element in the domain, by the rule f. There
may be a number of domain elements which map to the same range element. That is, every y in Y is mapped from an element x in
X, more than one x can map to the same y. Left: Only one domain is shown which makes f surjective. Right: two possible domains
X1 and X2 are shown.
y y3 Y y
y Y
y Y
y2 Y
im f
im f
y0 Y y1 Y
x x
x X
x0 X x X
x1 X x3 X
x2 X
f :X Y
y f x x X1 x X2
f : X1 Y1 f : X2 Y2
y f x
Non-surjective functions in the Cartesian plane. Although some parts of the function are surjective, where elements y in Y do have
a value x in X such that y = f(x), some parts are not. Left: There is y0 in Y, but there is no x0 in X such that y0 = f(x0 ). Right:
There are y1 , y2 and y3 in Y, but there are no x1 , x2 , and x3 in X such that y1 = f(x1 ), y2 = f(x2 ), and y3 = f(x3 ).
X Y Z
1 D P
2 B Q
3 C R
4 A
Surjective composition: the rst function need not be surjective.
60.3. PROPERTIES 229
X Y
1 D
2 B
3 C
4 A
Another surjective function. (This one happens to be a bijection)
X Y
1 D
2 B
3 C
A
A non-surjective function. (This one happens to be an injection)
A function f : X Y is surjective if and only if it is right-cancellative:[3] given any functions g,h : Y Z, whenever g
o f = h o f, then g = h. This property is formulated in terms of functions and their composition and can be generalized
to the more general notion of the morphisms of a category and their composition. Right-cancellative morphisms are
called epimorphisms. Specically, surjective functions are precisely the epimorphisms in the category of sets. The
prex epi is derived from the Greek preposition meaning over, above, on.
Any morphism with a right inverse is an epimorphism, but the converse is not true in general. A right inverse g of a
morphism f is called a section of f. A morphism with a right inverse is called a split epimorphism.
Any function with domain X and codomain Y can be seen as a left-total and right-unique binary relation between X
and Y by identifying it with its function graph. A surjective function with domain X and codomain Y is then a binary
relation between X and Y that is right-unique and both left-total and right-total.
The cardinality of the domain of a surjective function is greater than or equal to the cardinality of its codomain: If f
: X Y is a surjective function, then X has at least as many elements as Y, in the sense of cardinal numbers. (The
proof appeals to the axiom of choice to show that a function g : Y X satisfying f(g(y)) = y for all y in Y exists. g
is easily seen to be injective, thus the formal denition of |Y| |X| is satised.)
Specically, if both X and Y are nite with the same number of elements, then f : X Y is surjective if and only if
f is injective.
Given two sets X and Y, the notation X * Y is used to say that either X is empty or that there is a surjection from Y
onto X. Using the axiom of choice one can show that X * Y and Y * X together imply that |Y| = |X|, a variant of
the SchrderBernstein theorem.
The composite of surjective functions is always surjective: If f and g are both surjective, and the codomain of g
is equal to the domain of f, then f o g is surjective. Conversely, if f o g is surjective, then f is surjective (but g,
the function applied rst, need not be). These properties generalize from surjections in the category of sets to any
epimorphisms in any category.
230 CHAPTER 60. SURJECTIVE FUNCTION
Any function can be decomposed into a surjection and an injection: For any function h : X Z there exist a surjection
f : X Y and an injection g : Y Z such that h = g o f. To see this, dene Y to be the sets h 1 (z) where z is in
Z. These sets are disjoint and partition X. Then f carries each x to the element of Y which contains it, and g carries
each element of Y to the point in Z to which h sends its points. Then f is surjective since it is a projection map, and
g is injective by denition.
Covering map
Enumeration
Fiber bundle
Index set
60.5 Notes
[1] Miller, Je, Injection, Surjection and Bijection, Earliest Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics, Tripod.
[3] Goldblatt, Robert (2006) [1984]. Topoi, the Categorial Analysis of Logic (Revised ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-
486-45026-1. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
60.6 References
Bourbaki, Nicolas (2004) [1968]. Theory of Sets. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-22525-6.
Chapter 61
Symmetric closure
In mathematics, the symmetric closure of a binary relation R on a set X is the smallest symmetric relation on X that
contains R.
For example, if X is a set of airports and xRy means there is a direct ight from airport x to airport y", then the
symmetric closure of R is the relation there is a direct ight either from x to y or from y to x". Or, if X is the set of
humans and R is the relation 'parent of', then the symmetric closure of R is the relation "x is a parent or a child of y".
61.1 Denition
The symmetric closure S of a relation R on a set X is given by
S = R {(x, y) : (y, x) R} .
In other words, the symmetric closure of R is the union of R with its inverse relation, R 1 .
61.3 References
Franz Baader and Tobias Nipkow, Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 8
231
Chapter 62
In mathematics, a ternary equivalence relation is a kind of ternary relation analogous to a binary equivalence
relation. A ternary equivalence relation is symmetric, reexive, and transitive. The classic example is the relation
of collinearity among three points in Euclidean space. In an abstract set, a ternary equivalence relation determines a
collection of equivalence classes or pencils that form a linear space in the sense of incidence geometry. In the same
way, a binary equivalence relation on a set determines a partition.
62.1 Denition
A ternary equivalence relation on a set X is a relation E X3 , written [a, b, c], that satises the following axioms:
1. Symmetry: If [a, b, c] then [b, c, a] and [c, b, a]. (Therefore also [a, c, b], [b, a, c], and [c, a, b].)
2. Reexivity: [a, b, b]. Equivalently, if a, b, and c are not all distinct, then [a, b, c].
3. Transitivity: If a b and [a, b, c] and [a, b, d] then [b, c, d]. (Therefore also [a, c, d].)
62.2 References
Arajoa, Joo; Koniecznyc, Janusz (2007), A method of nding automorphism groups of endomorphism
monoids of relational systems, Discrete Mathematics, 307: 16091620, doi:10.1016/j.disc.2006.09.029
Bachmann, Friedrich, Aufbau der Geometrie aus dem Spiegelungsbegri
Karzel, Helmut (2007), Loops related to geometric structures, Quasigroups and Related Systems, 15: 4776
Karzel, Helmut; Pianta, Silvia (2008), Binary operations derived from symmetric permutation sets and appli-
cations to absolute geometry, Discrete Mathematics, 308: 415421, doi:10.1016/j.disc.2006.11.058
Karzel, Helmut; Marchi, Mario; Pianta, Silvia (December 2010), The defect in an invariant reection struc-
ture, Journal of Geometry, 99 (1-2): 6787, doi:10.1007/s00022-010-0058-7
Lingenberg, Rolf (1979), Metric planes and metric vector spaces, Wiley
Rainich, G.Y. (1952), Ternary relations in geometry and algebra, Michigan Mathematical Journal, 1 (2):
97111, doi:10.1307/mmj/1028988890
Szmielew, Wanda (1981), On n-ary equivalence relations and their application to geometry, Warsaw: Instytut
Matematyczny Polskiej Akademi Nauk
232
Chapter 63
Ternary relation
In mathematics, a ternary relation or triadic relation is a nitary relation in which the number of places in the
relation is three. Ternary relations may also be referred to as 3-adic, 3-ary, 3-dimensional, or 3-place.
Just as a binary relation is formally dened as a set of pairs, i.e. a subset of the Cartesian product A B of some sets
A and B, so a ternary relation is a set of triples, forming a subset of the Cartesian product A B C of three sets A,
B and C.
An example of a ternary relation in elementary geometry is the collinearity of points.
63.1 Examples
A function : A B C in two variables, taking values in two sets A and B, respectively, is formally a function that
associates to every pair (a,b) in A B an element (a, b) in C. Therefore, its graph consists of pairs of the form ((a,
b), (a, b)). Such pairs in which the rst element is itself a pair are often identied with triples. This makes the graph
of a ternary relation between A, B and C, consisting of all triples (a, b, (a, b)), for all a in A and b in B.
Given any set A whose elements are arranged on a circle, one can dene a ternary relation R on A, i.e. a subset of A3
= A A A, by stipulating that R(a, b, c) holds if and only if the elements a, b and c are pairwise dierent and when
going from a to c in a clockwise direction one passes through b. For example, if A = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12 } represents the hours on a clock face, then R(8, 12, 4) holds and R(12, 8, 4) does not hold.
233
234 CHAPTER 63. TERNARY RELATION
ab (mod m)
which holds for three integers a, b, and m if and only if m divides a b, formally may be considered as a ternary
relation. However, usually, this instead is considered as a family of binary relations between the a and the b, indexed
by the modulus m. For each xed m, indeed this binary relation has some natural properties, like being an equivalence
relation; while the combined ternary relation in general is not studied as one relation.
A typing relation e : indicates that e is a term of type in context , and is thus a ternary relation between
contexts, terms and types.
Novk, Vtzslav (1996), Ternary structures and partial semigroups, Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 46
(1): 111120, hdl:10338.dmlcz/127275
Novk, Vtzslav; Novotn, Miroslav (1989), Transitive ternary relations and quasiorderings, Archivum
Mathematicum, 25 (12): 512, hdl:10338.dmlcz/107333
Novk, Vtzslav; Novotn, Miroslav (1992), Binary and ternary relations, Mathematica Bohemica, 117 (3):
283292, hdl:10338.dmlcz/126278
Novotn, Miroslav (1991), Ternary structures and groupoids, Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 41 (1):
9098, hdl:10338.dmlcz/102437
lapal, Josef (1993), Relations and topologies, Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 43 (1): 141150, hdl:10338.dmlcz/128381
Chapter 64
Tolerance relation
In mathematics, a tolerance relation is a relation that is reexive and symmetric. It does not need to be transitive.
235
Chapter 65
Total order
In mathematics, a linear order, total order, simple order, or (non-strict) ordering is a binary relation on some set
X , which is antisymmetric, transitive, and total (this relation is denoted here by inx ). A set paired with a total
order is called a totally ordered set, a linearly ordered set, a simply ordered set, or a chain.
More symbolically, a set X is totally ordered under if the following statements hold for all a, b and c in X :
Antisymmetry eliminates uncertain cases when both a precedes b and b precedes a .[1] A relation having the property
of totality means that any pair of elements in the set of the relation are comparable under the relation. This also
means that the set can be diagrammed as a line of elements, giving it the name linear.[2] Totality also implies reexivity,
i.e., a a. Therefore, a total order is also a partial order, as, for a partial order, the totality condition is replaced by
the weaker condition of reexivity. An extension of a given partial order to a total order is called a linear extension
of that partial order.
Properties:
We can work the other way and start by choosing < as a transitive trichotomous binary relation; then a total order
can equivalently be dened in two ways:
Two more associated orders are the complements and >, completing the quadruple {<, >, , }.
We can dene or explain the way a set is totally ordered by any of these four relations; the notation implies whether
we are talking about the non-strict or the strict total order.
236
65.2. EXAMPLES 237
65.2 Examples
The letters of the alphabet ordered by the standard dictionary order, e.g., A < B < C etc.
Any subset of a totally ordered set X is totally ordered for the restriction of the order on X.
Any set of cardinal numbers or ordinal numbers (more strongly, these are well-orders).
If X is any set and f an injective function from X to a totally ordered set then f induces a total ordering on X
by setting x1 < x2 if and only if f(x1 ) < f(x2 ).
The lexicographical order on the Cartesian product of a family of totally ordered sets, indexed by a well ordered
set, is itself a total order.
The set of real numbers ordered by the usual less than (<) or greater than (>) relations is totally ordered, hence
also the subsets of natural numbers, integers, and rational numbers. Each of these can be shown to be the unique
(to within isomorphism) smallest example of a totally ordered set with a certain property, (a total order A is
the smallest with a certain property if whenever B has the property, there is an order isomorphism from A to a
subset of B):
The natural numbers comprise the smallest totally ordered set with no upper bound.
The integers comprise the smallest totally ordered set with neither an upper nor a lower bound.
The rational numbers comprise the smallest totally ordered set which is dense in the real numbers. The
denition of density used here says that for every a and b in the real numbers such that a < b, there is a q
in the rational numbers such that a < q < b.
The real numbers comprise the smallest unbounded totally ordered set that is connected in the order
topology (dened below).
Ordered elds are totally ordered by denition. They include the rational numbers and the real numbers. Every
ordered eld contains an ordered subeld that is isomorphic to the rational numbers. Any Dedekind-complete
ordered eld is isomorphic to the real numbers.
65.3.1 Chains
While chain is sometimes merely a synonym for totally ordered set, it can also refer to a totally ordered subset of
some partially ordered set. The latter denition has a crucial role in Zorns lemma. The height of a poset denotes the
cardinality of its largest chain in this sense.
For example, consider the set of all subsets of the integers partially ordered by inclusion. Then the set { In : n is a
natural number}, where In is the set of natural numbers below n, is a chain in this ordering, as it is totally ordered
under inclusion: If nk, then In is a subset of Ik.
One may dene a totally ordered set as a particular kind of lattice, namely one in which we have
We then write a b if and only if a = a b . Hence a totally ordered set is a distributive lattice.
238 CHAPTER 65. TOTAL ORDER
65.3.6 Completeness
A totally ordered set is said to be complete if every nonempty subset that has an upper bound, has a least upper
bound. For example, the set of real numbers R is complete but the set of rational numbers Q is not.
There are a number of results relating properties of the order topology to the completeness of X:
X is connected under the order topology if and only if it is complete and there is no gap in X (a gap is two
points a and b in X with a < b such that no c satises a < c < b.)
X is complete if and only if every bounded set that is closed in the order topology is compact.
A totally ordered set (with its order topology) which is a complete lattice is compact. Examples are the closed intervals
of real numbers, e.g. the unit interval [0,1], and the anely extended real number system (extended real number line).
There are order-preserving homeomorphisms between these examples.
1. x, y A1 and x 1 y
2. x, y A2 and x 2 y
3. x A1 and y A2
65.4. ORDERS ON THE CARTESIAN PRODUCT OF TOTALLY ORDERED SETS 239
Intutitively, this means that the elements of the second set are added on top of the elements of the rst set.
More generally, if (I, ) is a totally ordered index set, and for each i I the structure (Ai , i ) is a linear order,
where the sets Ai are pairwise disjoint, then the natural total order on i Ai is dened by
For x, y iI Ai , x y holds if:
Lexicographical order: (a,b) (c,d) if and only if a < c or (a = c and b d). This is a total order.
(a,b) (c,d) if and only if a c and b d (the product order). This is a partial order.
(a,b) (c,d) if and only if (a < c and b < d) or (a = c and b = d) (the reexive closure of the direct product of
the corresponding strict total orders). This is also a partial order.
All three can similarly be dened for the Cartesian product of more than two sets.
Applied to the vector space Rn , each of these make it an ordered vector space.
See also examples of partially ordered sets.
A real function of n real variables dened on a subset of Rn denes a strict weak order and a corresponding total
preorder on that subset.
Well-order
Suslins problem
Countryman line
65.7 Notes
[1] Nederpelt, Rob (2004). Chapter 20.2: Ordered Sets. Orderings. Logical Reasoning: A First Course. Texts in Computing.
3 (3rd, Revised ed.). Kings College Publications. p. 325. ISBN 0-9543006-7-X.
240 CHAPTER 65. TOTAL ORDER
[2] Nederpelt, Rob (2004). Chapter 20.3: Ordered Sets. Linear orderings. Logical Reasoning: A First Course. Texts in
Computing. 3 (3rd, Revisied ed.). Kings College Publications. p. 330. ISBN 0-9543006-7-X.
[3] Macpherson, H. Dugald (2011), A survey of homogeneous structures (PDF), Discrete Mathematics, doi:10.1016/j.disc.2011.01.024,
retrieved 28 April 2011
65.8 References
George Grtzer (1971). Lattice theory: rst concepts and distributive lattices. W. H. Freeman and Co. ISBN
0-7167-0442-0
John G. Hocking and Gail S. Young (1961). Topology. Corrected reprint, Dover, 1988. ISBN 0-486-65676-4
Chapter 66
Total relation
In mathematics, a binary relation R over a set X is total or complete if for all a and b in X, a is related to b or b is
related to a (or both).
In mathematical notation, this is
a, b X(aRb bRa)
66.1 Examples
For example, is less than or equal to is a total relation over the set of real numbers, because for two numbers either
the rst is less than or equal to the second, or the second is less than or equal to the rst. On the other hand, is less
than is not a total relation, since one can pick two equal numbers, and then neither the rst is less than the second, nor
is the second less than the rst. (But note that is less than is a weak order which gives rise to a total order, namely
is less than or equal to. The relationship between strict orders and weak orders is discussed at partially ordered set.)
The relation is a subset of is also not total because, for example, neither of the sets {1,2} and {3,4} is a subset of
the other.
Connexity does not imply reexivity. A strict partial order is a strict total order if and only if it is connex.
Total order
241
242 CHAPTER 66. TOTAL RELATION
66.4 References
[1] Rautenberg, Wolfgang (2010), A Concise Introduction to Mathematical Logic (3rd ed.), New York: Springer Science+Business
Media, ISBN 978-1-4419-1220-6, doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1221-3
Chapter 67
Transitive closure
In mathematics, the transitive closure of a binary relation R on a set X is the smallest relation on X that contains R
and is transitive.
For example, if X is a set of airports and x R y means there is a direct ight from airport x to airport y" (for x and y
in X), then the transitive closure of R on X is the relation R+ such that x R+ y means it is possible to y from x to y in
one or more ights. Informally, the transitive closure gives you the set of all places you can get to from any starting
place.
More formally, the transitive closure of a binary relation R on a set X is the transitive relation R+ on set X such that R+
contains R and R+ is minimal (Lidl & Pilz (1998), p. 337). If the binary relation itself is transitive, then the transitive
closure is that same binary relation; otherwise, the transitive closure is a dierent relation.
243
244 CHAPTER 67. TRANSITIVE CLOSURE
following expression
R+ = Ri .
i{1,2,3,...}
R1 = R
Ri+1 = R Ri
67.3 Properties
The intersection of two transitive relations is transitive.
The union of two transitive relations need not be transitive. To preserve transitivity, one must take the transitive
closure. This occurs, for example, when taking the union of two equivalence relations or two preorders. To obtain a
new equivalence relation or preorder one must take the transitive closure (reexivity and symmetryin the case of
equivalence relationsare automatic).
Input
Output
Transitive closure constructs the output graph from the input graph.
the transitive closure of R. In nite model theory, rst-order logic (FO) extended with a transitive closure operator
is usually called transitive closure logic, and abbreviated FO(TC) or just TC. TC is a sub-type of xpoint logics.
The fact that FO(TC) is strictly more expressive than FO was discovered by Ronald Fagin in 1974; the result was
then rediscovered by Alfred Aho and Jerey Ullman in 1979, who proposed to use xpoint logic as a database query
language (Libkin 2004:vii). With more recent concepts of nite model theory, proof that FO(TC) is strictly more
expressive than FO follows immediately from the fact that FO(TC) is not Gaifman-local (Libkin 2004:49).
In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NL corresponds precisely to the set of logical sentences
expressible in TC. This is because the transitive closure property has a close relationship with the NL-complete
problem STCON for nding directed paths in a graph. Similarly, the class L is rst-order logic with the commutative,
transitive closure. When transitive closure is added to second-order logic instead, we obtain PSPACE.
Since the 1980s Oracle Database has implemented a proprietary SQL extension CONNECT BY... START WITH
that allows the computation of a transitive closure as part of a declarative query. The SQL 3 (1999) standard added
a more general WITH RECURSIVE construct also allowing transitive closures to be computed inside the query
processor; as of 2011 the latter is implemented in IBM DB2, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and PostgreSQL,
although not in MySQL (Benedikt and Senellart 2011:189).
Datalog also implements transitive closure computations (Silberschatz et al. 2010:C.3.6).
67.7 Algorithms
Ecient algorithms for computing the transitive closure of a graph can be found in Nuutila (1995). The fastest worst-
case methods, which are not practical, reduce the problem to matrix multiplication. The problem can also be solved
by the FloydWarshall algorithm, or by repeated breadth-rst search or depth-rst search starting from each node of
the graph.
More recent research has explored ecient ways of computing transitive closure on distributed systems based on the
MapReduce paradigm (Afrati et al. 2011).
246 CHAPTER 67. TRANSITIVE CLOSURE
Deductive closure
Reexive closure
Symmetric closure
Transitive reduction (a smallest relation having the transitive closure of R as its transitive closure)
67.9 References
Lidl, R. and Pilz, G., 1998, Applied abstract algebra, 2nd edition, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics,
Springer, ISBN 0-387-98290-6
Keller, U., 2004, Some Remarks on the Denability of Transitive Closure in First-order Logic and Datalog
(unpublished manuscript)
Erich Grdel; Phokion G. Kolaitis; Leonid Libkin; Maarten Marx; Joel Spencer; Moshe Y. Vardi; Yde Venema;
Scott Weinstein (2007). Finite Model Theory and Its Applications. Springer. pp. 151152. ISBN 978-3-540-
68804-4.
Libkin, Leonid (2004), Elements of Finite Model Theory, Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-21202-7
Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus; Jrg Flum (1999). Finite Model Theory (2nd ed.). Springer. pp. 123124, 151161,
220235. ISBN 978-3-540-28787-2.
Aho, A. V.; Ullman, J. D. (1979). Universality of data retrieval languages. Proceedings of the 6th ACM
SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '79. p. 110. doi:10.1145/567752.567763.
Benedikt, M.; Senellart, P. (2011). Databases. In Blum, Edward K.; Aho, Alfred V. Computer Science.
The Hardware, Software and Heart of It. pp. 169229. ISBN 978-1-4614-1167-3. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-
1168-0_10.
Nuutila, E., Ecient Transitive Closure Computation in Large Digraphs. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica,
Mathematics and Computing in Engineering Series No. 74, Helsinki 1995, 124 pages. Published by the
Finnish Academy of Technology. ISBN 951-666-451-2, ISSN 1237-2404, UDC 681.3.
Abraham Silberschatz; Henry Korth; S. Sudarshan (2010). Database System Concepts (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
ISBN 978-0-07-352332-3. Appendix C (online only)
Foto N. Afrati, Vinayak Borkar, Michael Carey, Neoklis Polyzotis, Jerey D. Ullman, Map-Reduce Extensions
and Recursive Queries, EDBT 2011, March 2224, 2011, Uppsala, Sweden, ISBN 978-1-4503-0528-0
Trichotomy (mathematics)
In mathematics, the law of trichotomy states that every real number is either positive, negative, or zero.[1] More
generally, trichotomy is the property of an order relation < on a set X that for any x and y, exactly one of the
following holds: x < y, x = y , or x > y .[2][3]
In mathematical notation, this is
Assuming that the ordering is irreexive and transitive, this can be simplied to
In classical logic, this axiom of trichotomy holds for ordinary comparison between real numbers and therefore also
for comparisons between integers and between rational numbers. The law does not hold in general in intuitionistic
logic.
In ZermeloFraenkel set theory and Bernays set theory, the law of trichotomy holds between the cardinal numbers
of well-orderable sets even without the axiom of choice. If the axiom of choice holds, then trichotomy holds between
arbitrary cardinal numbers (because they are all well-orderable in that case).[4]
More generally, a binary relation R on X is trichotomous if for all x and y in X exactly one of xRy, yRx or x=y holds.
If such a relation is also transitive it is a strict total order; this is a special case of a strict weak order. For example, in
the case of three element set {a,b,c} the relation R given by aRb, aRc, bRc is a strict total order, while the relation R
given by the cyclic aRb, bRc, cRa is a non-transitive trichotomous relation.
In the denition of an ordered integral domain or ordered eld, the law of trichotomy is usually taken as more
foundational than the law of total order.
A trichotomous relation cannot be reexive, since xRx must be false. If a trichotomous relation is transitive, it is
trivially antisymmetric and also asymmetric, since xRy and yRx cannot both hold.
Dichotomy
Law of noncontradiction
247
248 CHAPTER 68. TRICHOTOMY (MATHEMATICS)
68.2 References
[1] Trichotomy Law at MathWorld
[2] Jerrold E. Marsden & Michael J. Homan (1993) Elementary Classical Analysis, page 27, W. H. Freeman and Company
ISBN 0-7167-2105-8
[3] H.S. Bear (1997) An Introduction to Mathematical Analysis, page 11, Academic Press ISBN 0-12-083940-7
[4] Bernays, Paul (1991). Axiomatic Set Theory. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-66637-9.
Chapter 69
Unimodality
Unimodal redirects here. For the company that promotes personal rapid transit, see SkyTran.
In mathematics, unimodality means possessing a unique mode. More generally, unimodality means there is only a
single highest value, somehow dened, of some mathematical object.[1]
= 0, = 0.2
0.9 = 0, = 1.0
= 0, = 5.0
0.8 = -2, = 0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
In statistics, a unimodal probability distribution or unimodal distribution is a probability distribution which has
249
250 CHAPTER 69. UNIMODALITY
a single mode. As the term mode has multiple meanings, so does the term unimodal.
Strictly speaking, a mode of a discrete probability distribution is a value at which the probability mass function (pmf)
takes its maximum value. In other words, it is a most likely value. A mode of a continuous probability distribution
is a value at which the probability density function (pdf) attains its maximum value. Note that in both cases there
can be more than one mode, since the maximum value of either the pmf or the pdf can be attained at more than one
value.
If there is a single mode, the distribution function is called unimodal. If it has more modes it is bimodal (2),
trimodal (3), etc., or in general, multimodal.[2] Figure 1 illustrates normal distributions, which are unimodal.
Other examples of unimodal distributions include Cauchy distribution, Students t-distribution, chi-squared distribu-
tion and exponential distribution. Among discrete distributions, the binomial distribution and Poisson distribution
69.1. UNIMODAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION 251
can be seen as unimodal, though for some parameters they can have two adjacent values with the same probability.
Figure 2 illustrates a bimodal distribution.
Figure 3 illustrates a distribution with a single global maximum which by strict denition is unimodal. However,
confusingly, and mostly with continuous distributions, when a pdf function has multiple local maxima it is common
to refer to all of the local maxima as modes of the distribution. Therefore, if a pdf has more than one local maximum
it is referred to as multimodal. Under this common denition, Figure 3 illustrates a bimodal distribution.
One reason for the importance of distribution unimodality is that it allows for several important results. Several
inequalities are given below which are only valid for unimodal distributions. Thus, it is important to assess whether
or not a given data set comes from a unimodal distribution. Several tests for unimodality are given in the article on
multimodal distribution.
69.1.3 Inequalities
Gausss inequality
A rst important result is Gausss inequality.[7] Gausss inequality gives an upper bound on the probability that a value
lies more than any given distance from its mode. This inequality depends on unimodality.
VysochanskiPetunin inequality
A second is the VysochanskiPetunin inequality,[8] a renement of the Chebyshev inequality. The Chebyshev in-
equality guarantees that in any probability distribution, nearly all the values are close to the mean value. The
VysochanskiPetunin inequality renes this to even nearer values, provided that the distribution function is contin-
uous and unimodal. Further results were shown by Sellke & Sellke.[9]
and
3
| | ,
4
where the median is , the mean is and is the root mean square deviation from the mode.
It can be shown for a unimodal distribution that the median and the mean lie within (3/5)1/2 0.7746 standard
deviations of each other.[11] In symbols,
| | 3
5
where |.| is the absolute value.
A similar relation holds between the median and the mode : they lie within 31/2 1.732 standard deviations of each
other:
| |
3.
It can also be shown that the mean and the mode lie within 31/2 of each other.
| |
3.
Rohatgi and Szekely have shown that the skewness and kurtosis of a unimodal distribution are related by the inequality:[12]
6
2
5
where is the kurtosis and is the skewness.
Klaassen, Mokveld, and van Es derived a slightly dierent inequality (shown below) from the one derived by Rohatgi
and Szekely (shown above), which tends to be more inclusive (i.e., yield more positives) in tests of unimodality:[13]
186
2
125
Examples of unimodal functions include quadratic polynomial functions with a negative quadratic coecient, tent
map functions, and more.
The above is sometimes related to as strong unimodality, from the fact that the monotonicity implied is strong
monotonicity. A function f(x) is a weakly unimodal function if there exists a value m for which it is weakly mono-
tonically increasing for x m and weakly monotonically decreasing for x m. In that case, the maximum value
f(m) can be reached for a continuous range of values of x. An example of a weakly unimodal function which is not
strongly unimodal is every other row in a Pascal triangle.
Depending on context, unimodal function may also refer to a function that has only one local minimum, rather than
maximum.[15] For example, local unimodal sampling, a method for doing numerical optimization, is often demon-
strated with such a function. It can be said that a unimodal function under this extension is a function with a single
local extremum.
One important property of unimodal functions is that the extremum can be found using search algorithms such as
golden section search, ternary search or successive parabolic interpolation.
69.5 References
[1] Weisstein, Eric W. Unimodal. MathWorld.
[3] A.Ya. Khinchin (1938). On unimodal distributions. Trams. Res. Inst. Math. Mech. (in Russian). University of Tomsk.
2 (2): 17.
[4] Ushakov, N.G. (2001) [1994], Unimodal distribution, in Hazewinkel, Michiel, Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. / Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4
[5] Vladimirovich Gnedenko and Victor Yu Korolev (1996). Random summation: limit theorems and applications. CRC-Press.
ISBN 0-8493-2875-6. p. 31
[6] Medgyessy, P. (March 1972). On the unimodality of discrete distributions. Periodica Mathematica Hungarica. 2 (14):
245257. doi:10.1007/bf02018665.
[7] Gauss, C. F. (1823). Theoria Combinationis Observationum Erroribus Minimis Obnoxiae, Pars Prior. Commentationes
Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Recentiores. 5.
[8] D. F. Vysochanskij, Y. I. Petunin (1980). Justication of the 3 rule for unimodal distributions. Theory of Probability
and Mathematical Statistics. 21: 2536.
[9] Sellke, T.M.; Sellke, S.H. (1997). Chebyshev inequalities for unimodal distributions. American Statistician. American
Statistical Association. 51 (1): 3440. JSTOR 2684690. doi:10.2307/2684690.
254 CHAPTER 69. UNIMODALITY
[10] Gauss C.F. Theoria Combinationis Observationum Erroribus Minimis Obnoxiae. Pars Prior. Pars Posterior. Supplemen-
tum. Theory of the Combination of Observations Least Subject to Errors. Part One. Part Two. Supplement. 1995.
Translated by G.W. Stewart. Classics in Applied Mathematics Series, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
Philadelphia
[11] Basu, Sanjib, and Anirban DasGupta. The mean, median, and mode of unimodal distributions: a characterization. Theory
of Probability & Its Applications 41.2 (1997): 210-223.
[12] Rohatgi VK, Szekely GJ (1989) Sharp inequalities between skewness and kurtosis. Statistics & Probability Letters 8:297-
299
[13] Klaassen CAJ, Mokveld PJ, van Es B (2000) Squared skewness minus kurtosis bounded by 186/125 for unimodal distri-
butions. Stat & Prob Lett 50 (2) 131135
[14] On the unimodality of METRIC Approximation subject to normally distributed demands. (PDF). Method in appendix
D, Example in theorem 2 page 5. Retrieved 2013-08-28.
[16] See e.g. John Guckenheimer and Stewart Johnson (July 1990). Distortion of S-Unimodal Maps. The Annals of Mathe-
matics, Second Series. 132 (1). pp. 71130. doi:10.2307/1971501.
[17] Godfried T. Toussaint (June 1984). Complexity, convexity, and unimodality. International Journal of Computer and
Information Sciences. 13 (3). pp. 197217. doi:10.1007/bf00979872.
Chapter 70
Weak ordering
a<c<b
a<b a<b
c<a<b c<b a<c a<b<c
b<c<a
The 13 possible strict weak orderings on a set of three elements {a, b, c}. The only partially ordered sets are coloured, while totally
ordered ones are in black. Two orderings are shown as connected by an edge if they dier by a single dichotomy.
255
256 CHAPTER 70. WEAK ORDERING
a ranking of a set, some of whose members may be tied with each other. Weak orders are a generalization of totally
ordered sets (rankings without ties) and are in turn generalized by partially ordered sets and preorders.[1]
There are several common ways of formalizing weak orderings, that are dierent from each other but cryptomorphic
(interconvertable with no loss of information): they may be axiomatized as strict weak orderings (partially ordered
sets in which incomparability is a transitive relation), as total preorders (transitive binary relations in which at least
one of the two possible relations exists between every pair of elements), or as ordered partitions (partitions of the
elements into disjoint subsets, together with a total order on the subsets). In many cases another representation called
a preferential arrangement based on a utility function is also possible.
Weak orderings are counted by the ordered Bell numbers. They are used in computer science as part of partition
renement algorithms, and in the C++ Standard Library.[2]
70.1 Examples
In horse racing, the use of photo nishes has eliminated some, but not all, ties or (as they are called in this context)
dead heats, so the outcome of a horse race may be modeled by a weak ordering.[3] In an example from the Maryland
Hunt Cup steeplechase in 2007, The Bruce was the clear winner, but two horses Bug River and Lear Charm tied for
second place, with the remaining horses farther back; three horses did not nish.[4] In the weak ordering describing
this outcome, The Bruce would be rst, Bug River and Lear Charm would be ranked after The Bruce but before all
the other horses that nished, and the three horses that did not nish would be placed last in the order but tied with
each other.
The points of the Euclidean plane may be ordered by their distance from the origin, giving another example of a weak
ordering with innitely many elements, innitely many subsets of tied elements (the sets of points that belong to a
common circle centered at the origin), and innitely many points within these subsets. Although this ordering has a
smallest element (the origin itself), it does not have any second-smallest elements, nor any largest element.
Opinion polling in political elections provides an example of a type of ordering that resembles weak orderings, but is
better modeled mathematically in other ways. In the results of a poll, one candidate may be clearly ahead of another,
or the two candidates may be statistically tied, meaning not that their poll results are equal but rather that they are
within the margin of error of each other. However, if candidate x is statistically tied with y, and y is statistically tied
with z, it might still be possible for x to be clearly better than z, so being tied is not in this case a transitive relation.
Because of this possibility, rankings of this type are better modeled as semiorders than as weak orderings.[5]
70.2 Axiomatizations
A strict weak ordering is a binary relation < on a set S that is a strict partial order (a transitive relation that is
irreexive, or equivalently,[6] that is asymmetric) in which the relation neither a < b nor b < a" is transitive.[1]
Therefore, a strict weak ordering has the following properties:
For all x, y in S, if x < y then it is not the case that y < x (asymmetry).
For all x, y, z in S, if x is incomparable with y (neither x < y nor y < x hold), and y is incomparable with z, then
x is incomparable with z (transitivity of incomparability).
This list of properties is somewhat redundant, in that asymmetry implies irreexivity, and in that irreexivity and
transitivity together imply asymmetry.
The incomparability relation is an equivalence relation, and its equivalence classes partition the elements of S, and
are totally ordered by <. Conversely, any total order on a partition of S gives rise to a strict weak ordering in which x
< y if and only if there exists sets A and B in the partition with x in A, y in B, and A < B in the total order.
70.2. AXIOMATIZATIONS 257
Not every partial order obeys the transitive law for incomparability. For instance, consider the partial order in the
set {a, b, c} dened by the relationship b < c. The pairs a, b and a, c are incomparable but b and c are related, so
incomparability does not form an equivalence relation and this example is not a strict weak ordering.
Transitivity of incomparability (together with transitivity) can also be stated in the following forms:
Or:
If x is incomparable with y, then for all z x, z y, either (x < z and y < z) or (z < x and z < y) or (z is
incomparable with x and z is incomparable with y).
Strict weak orders are very closely related to total preorders or (non-strict) weak orders, and the same mathematical
concepts that can be modeled with strict weak orderings can be modeled equally well with total preorders. A total
preorder or weak order is a preorder that is total; that is, no pair of items is incomparable. A total preorder satises
the following properties:
A total order is a total preorder which is antisymmetric, in other words, which is also a partial order. Total preorders
are sometimes also called preference relations.
The complement of a strict weak order is a total preorder, and vice versa, but it seems more natural to relate strict
weak orders and total preorders in a way that preserves rather than reverses the order of the elements. Thus we take
the inverse of the complement: for a strict weak ordering <, dene a total preorder by setting x y whenever it is
not the case that y < x. In the other direction, to dene a strict weak ordering < from a total preorder , set x < y
whenever it is not the case that y x.[7]
In any preorder there is a corresponding equivalence relation where two elements x and y are dened as equivalent if
x y and y x. In the case of a total preorder the corresponding partial order on the set of equivalence classes is a
total order. Two elements are equivalent in a total preorder if and only if they are incomparable in the corresponding
strict weak ordering.
A partition of a set S is a family of disjoint subsets of S that have S as their union. A partition, together with a
total order on the sets of the partition, gives a structure called by Richard P. Stanley an ordered partition[8] and by
Theodore Motzkin a list of sets.[9] An ordered partition of a nite set may be written as a nite sequence of the sets
in the partition: for instance, the three ordered partitions of the set {a, b} are
{a}, {b},
{b}, {a}, and
{a, b}.
In a strict weak ordering, the equivalence classes of incomparability give a set partition, in which the sets inherit a
total ordering from their elements, giving rise to an ordered partition. In the other direction, any ordered partition
gives rise to a strict weak ordering in which two elements are incomparable when they belong to the same set in the
partition, and otherwise inherit the order of the sets that contain them.
258 CHAPTER 70. WEAK ORDERING
For sets of suciently small cardinality, a third axiomatization is possible, based on real-valued functions. If X is any
set and f a real-valued function on X then f induces a strict weak order on X by setting a < b if and only if f(a) < f(b).
The associated total preorder is given by setting a b if and only if f(a) f(b), and the associated equivalence by
setting a b if and only if f(a) = f(b).
The relations do not change when f is replaced by g o f (composite function), where g is a strictly increasing real-
valued function dened on at least the range of f. Thus e.g. a utility function denes a preference relation. In this
context, weak orderings are also known as preferential arrangements.[10]
If X is nite or countable, every weak order on X can be represented by a function in this way.[11] However, there
exist strict weak orders that have no corresponding real function. For example, there is no such function for the
lexicographic order on Rn . Thus, while in most preference relation models the relation denes a utility function up to
order-preserving transformations, there is no such function for lexicographic preferences.
More generally, if X is a set, and Y is a set with a strict weak ordering "<", and f a function from X to Y, then f
induces a strict weak ordering on X by setting a < b if and only if f(a) < f(b). As before, the associated total preorder
is given by setting a b if and only if f(a) f(b), and the associated equivalence by setting a b if and only
if f(a) f(b). It is not assumed here that f is an injective function, so a class of two equivalent elements on Y
may induce a larger class of equivalent elements on X. Also, f is not assumed to be an surjective function, so a class
of equivalent elements on Y may induce a smaller or empty class on X. However, the function f induces an injective
function that maps the partition on X to that on Y. Thus, in the case of nite partitions, the number of classes in X is
less than or equal to the number of classes on Y.
Semiorders generalize strict weak orderings, but do not assume transitivity of incomparability.[12] A strict weak order
that is trichotomous is called a strict total order.[13] The total preorder which is the inverse of its complement is in
this case a total order.
For a strict weak order "<" another associated reexive relation is its reexive closure, a (non-strict) partial order "".
The two associated reexive relations dier with regard to dierent a and b for which neither a < b nor b < a: in the
total preorder corresponding to a strict weak order we get a b and b a, while in the partial order given by the
reexive closure we get neither a b nor b a. For strict total orders these two associated reexive relations are
the same: the corresponding (non-strict) total order.[13] The reexive closure of a strict weak ordering is a type of
series-parallel partial order.
The number of distinct weak orders (represented either as strict weak orders or as total preorders) on an n-element
set is given by the following sequence (sequence A000670 in the OEIS):
These numbers are also called the Fubini numbers or ordered Bell numbers.
For example, for a set of three labeled items, there is one weak order in which all three items are tied. There are three
ways of partitioning the items into one singleton set and one group of two tied items, and each of these partitions
gives two weak orders (one in which the singleton is smaller than the group of two, and one in which this ordering is
reversed), giving six weak orders of this type. And there is a single way of partitioning the set into three singletons,
which can be totally ordered in six dierent ways. Thus, altogether, there are 13 dierent weak orders on three items.
70.4. ALL WEAK ORDERS ON A FINITE SET 259
(4,1,2,3)
(3,1,2,4) (4,2,1,3)
(3,2,1,4)
(4,1,3,2)
(2,1,3,4) (4,3,1,2)
(2,3,1,4)
(3,1,4,2) (4,2,3,1)
(2,1,4,3) (4,3,2,1)
(1,2,3,4) (3,4,1,2)
(1,3,2,4) (2,4,1,3)
(3,2,4,1)
(1,2,4,3) (3,4,2,1)
(1,4,2,3)
(2,3,4,1)
(1,3,4,2) (2,4,3,1)
(1,4,3,2)
The permutohedron on four elements, a three-dimensional convex polyhedron. It has 24 vertices, 36 edges, and 14 two-dimensional
faces, which all together with the whole three-dimensional polyhedron correspond to the 75 weak orderings on four elements.
Unlike for partial orders, the family of weak orderings on a given nite set is not in general connected by moves that
add or remove a single order relation to a given ordering. For instance, for three elements, the ordering in which all
three elements are tied diers by at least two pairs from any other weak ordering on the same set, in either the strict
weak ordering or total preorder axiomatizations. However, a dierent kind of move is possible, in which the weak
orderings on a set are more highly connected. Dene a dichotomy to be a weak ordering with two equivalence classes,
and dene a dichotomy to be compatible with a given weak ordering if every two elements that are related in the
ordering are either related in the same way or tied in the dichotomy. Alternatively, a dichotomy may be dened as a
Dedekind cut for a weak ordering. Then a weak ordering may be characterized by its set of compatible dichotomies.
For a nite set of labeled items, every pair of weak orderings may be connected to each other by a sequence of moves
that add or remove one dichotomy at a time to or from this set of dichotomies. Moreover, the undirected graph that
has the weak orderings as its vertices, and these moves as its edges, forms a partial cube.[14]
Geometrically, the total orderings of a given nite set may be represented as the vertices of a permutohedron, and the
dichotomies on this same set as the facets of the permutohedron. In this geometric representation, the weak orderings
on the set correspond to the faces of all dierent dimensions of the permutohedron (including the permutohedron
itself, but not the empty set, as a face). The codimension of a face gives the number of equivalence classes in the
corresponding weak ordering.[15] In this geometric representation the partial cube of moves on weak orderings is the
graph describing the covering relation of the face lattice of the permutohedron.
For instance, for n = 3, the permutohedron on three elements is just a regular hexagon. The face lattice of the hexagon
(again, including the hexagon itself as a face, but not including the empty set) has thirteen elements: one hexagon,
six edges, and six vertices, corresponding to the one completely tied weak ordering, six weak orderings with one tie,
and six total orderings. The graph of moves on these 13 weak orderings is shown in the gure.
260 CHAPTER 70. WEAK ORDERING
70.5 Applications
As mentioned above, weak orders have applications in utility theory.[11] In linear programming and other types of
combinatorial optimization problem, the prioritization of solutions or of bases is often given by a weak order, de-
termined by a real-valued objective function; the phenomenon of ties in these orderings is called degeneracy, and
several types of tie-breaking rule have been used to rene this weak ordering into a total ordering in order to prevent
problems caused by degeneracy.[16]
Weak orders have also been used in computer science, in partition renement based algorithms for lexicographic
breadth-rst search and lexicographic topological ordering. In these algorithms, a weak ordering on the vertices of a
graph (represented as a family of sets that partition the vertices, together with a doubly linked list providing a total
order on the sets) is gradually rened over the course of the algorithm, eventually producing a total ordering that is
the output of the algorithm.[17]
In the Standard Library for the C++ programming language, the set and multiset data types sort their input by a
comparison function that is specied at the time of template instantiation, and that is assumed to implement a strict
weak ordering.[2]
70.6 References
[1] Roberts, Fred; Tesman, Barry (2011), Applied Combinatorics (2nd ed.), CRC Press, Section 4.2.4 Weak Orders, pp. 254
256, ISBN 9781420099836.
[2] Josuttis, Nicolai M. (2012), The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference, Addison-Wesley, p. 469, ISBN
9780132977739.
[3] de Koninck, J. M. (2009), Those Fascinating Numbers, American Mathematical Society, p. 4, ISBN 9780821886311.
[4] Baker, Kent (April 29, 2007), The Bruce hangs on for Hunt Cup victory: Bug River, Lear Charm nish in dead heat for
second, The Baltimore Sun, (Subscription required (help)).
[5] Regenwetter, Michel (2006), Behavioral Social Choice: Probabilistic Models, Statistical Inference, and Applications, Cam-
bridge University Press, pp. 113, ISBN 9780521536660.
[6] Flaka, V.; Jeek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF). Prague: School
of Mathematics - Physics Charles University. p. 1. Lemma 1.1 (iv). Note that this source refers to asymmetric relations
as strictly antisymmetric.
[7] Ehrgott, Matthias (2005), Multicriteria Optimization, Springer, Proposition 1.9, p. 10, ISBN 9783540276593.
[8] Stanley, Richard P. (1997), Enumerative Combinatorics, Vol. 2, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 62, Cam-
bridge University Press, p. 297.
[9] Motzkin, Theodore S. (1971), Sorting numbers for cylinders and other classication numbers, Combinatorics (Proc.
Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIX, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1968), Providence, R.I.: Amer. Math. Soc., pp.
167176, MR 0332508.
[10] Gross, O. A. (1962), Preferential arrangements, The American Mathematical Monthly, 69: 48, MR 0130837, doi:10.2307/2312725.
[11] Roberts, Fred S. (1979), Measurement Theory, with Applications to Decisionmaking, Utility, and the Social Sciences, Ency-
clopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 7, Addison-Wesley, Theorem 3.1, ISBN 978-0-201-13506-0.
[12] Luce, R. Duncan (1956), Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination, Econometrica, 24: 178191, JSTOR 1905751,
MR 0078632, doi:10.2307/1905751.
[13] Velleman, Daniel J. (2006), How to Prove It: A Structured Approach, Cambridge University Press, p. 204, ISBN 9780521675994.
[14] Eppstein, David; Falmagne, Jean-Claude; Ovchinnikov, Sergei (2008), Media Theory: Interdisciplinary Applied Mathemat-
ics, Springer, Section 9.4, Weak Orders and Cubical Complexes, pp. 188196.
[15] Ziegler, Gnter M. (1995), Lectures on Polytopes, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 152, Springer, p. 18.
[16] Chvtal, Vaek (1983), Linear Programming, Macmillan, pp. 2938, ISBN 9780716715870.
[17] Habib, Michel; Paul, Christophe; Viennot, Laurent (1999), Partition renement techniques: an interesting algorithmic tool
kit, International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 10 (2): 147170, MR 1759929, doi:10.1142/S0129054199000125.
Chapter 71
Well-founded relation
Noetherian induction redirects here. For the use in topology, see Noetherian topological space.
In mathematics, a binary relation, R, is called well-founded (or wellfounded) on a class X if every non-empty subset
S X has a minimal element with respect to R; that is, some element m not related by sRm (for instance, "m is not
smaller than s) for any s S.
S X (S = m S s S (s, m)
/ R).
(Some authors include an extra condition that R is set-like, i.e., that the elements less than any given element form a
set.)
Equivalently, assuming some choice, a relation is well-founded if it contains no countable innite descending chains:
that is, there is no innite sequence x0 , x1 , x2 , ... of elements of X such that xn R x for every natural number n.
In order theory, a partial order is called well-founded if the corresponding strict order is a well-founded relation. If
the order is a total order then it is called a well-order.
In set theory, a set x is called a well-founded set if the set membership relation is well-founded on the transitive
closure of x. The axiom of regularity, which is one of the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel set theory, asserts that all sets
are well-founded.
A relation R is converse well-founded, upwards well-founded or Noetherian on X, if the converse relation R1
is well-founded on X. In this case R is also said to satisfy the ascending chain condition. In the context of rewriting
systems, a Noetherian relation is also called terminating.
If x is an element of X and P(y) is true for all y such that y R x, then P(x) must also be true.
That is,
261
262 CHAPTER 71. WELL-FOUNDED RELATION
That is, if we want to construct a function G on X, we may dene G(x) using the values of G(y) for y R x.
As an example, consider the well-founded relation (N, S), where N is the set of all natural numbers, and S is the graph
of the successor function x x + 1. Then induction on S is the usual mathematical induction, and recursion on S
gives primitive recursion. If we consider the order relation (N, <), we obtain complete induction, and course-of-values
recursion. The statement that (N, <) is well-founded is also known as the well-ordering principle.
There are other interesting special cases of well-founded induction. When the well-founded relation is the usual
ordering on the class of all ordinal numbers, the technique is called transnite induction. When the well-founded set
is a set of recursively-dened data structures, the technique is called structural induction. When the well-founded
relation is set membership on the universal class, the technique is known as -induction. See those articles for more
details.
71.2 Examples
Well-founded relations which are not totally ordered include:
the positive integers {1, 2, 3, ...}, with the order dened by a < b if and only if a divides b and a b.
the set of all nite strings over a xed alphabet, with the order dened by s < t if and only if s is a proper
substring of t.
the set N N of pairs of natural numbers, ordered by (n1 , n2 ) < (m1 , m2 ) if and only if n1 < m1 and n2 < m2 .
the set of all regular expressions over a xed alphabet, with the order dened by s < t if and only if s is a proper
subexpression of t.
any class whose elements are sets, with the relation (is an element of). This is the axiom of regularity.
the nodes of any nite directed acyclic graph, with the relation R dened such that a R b if and only if there is
an edge from a to b.
the negative integers {1, 2, 3, }, with the usual order, since any unbounded subset has no least element.
The set of strings over a nite alphabet with more than one element, under the usual (lexicographic) order,
since the sequence B > AB > AAB > AAAB > is an innite descending chain. This relation fails
to be well-founded even though the entire set has a minimum element, namely the empty string.
the rational numbers (or reals) under the standard ordering, since, for example, the set of positive rationals (or
reals) lacks a minimum.
The Mostowski collapse lemma implies that set membership is a universal among the extensional well-founded rela-
tions: for any set-like well-founded relation R on a class X which is extensional, there exists a class C such that (X,R)
is isomorphic to (C,).
71.4 Reexivity
A relation R is said to be reexive if a R a holds for every a in the domain of the relation. Every reexive relation on a
nonempty domain has innite descending chains, because any constant sequence is a descending chain. For example,
in the natural numbers with their usual order , we have 1 1 1 . To avoid these trivial descending
sequences, when working with a reexive relation R it is common to use (perhaps implicitly) the alternate relation R
dened such that a R b if and only if a R b and a b. In the context of the natural numbers, this means that the
relation <, which is well-founded, is used instead of the relation , which is not. In some texts, the denition of a
well-founded relation is changed from the denition above to include this convention.
71.5 References
[1] Bourbaki, N. (1972) Elements of mathematics. Commutative algebra, Addison-Wesley.
Just, Winfried and Weese, Martin, Discovering Modern Set theory. I, American Mathematical Society (1998)
ISBN 0-8218-0266-6.
Chapter 72
Well-order
In mathematics, a well-order (or well-ordering or well-order relation) on a set S is a total order on S with the
property that every non-empty subset of S has a least element in this ordering. The set S together with the well-order
relation is then called a well-ordered set. In some academic articles and textbooks these terms are instead written as
wellorder, wellordered, and wellordering or well order, well ordered, and well ordering.
Every non-empty well-ordered set has a least element. Every element s of a well-ordered set, except a possible greatest
element, has a unique successor (next element), namely the least element of the subset of all elements greater than
s. There may be elements besides the least element which have no predecessor (see Natural numbers below for an
example). In a well-ordered set S, every subset T which has an upper bound has a least upper bound, namely the least
element of the subset of all upper bounds of T in S.
If is a non-strict well ordering, then < is a strict well ordering. A relation is a strict well ordering if and only if it is
a well-founded strict total order. The distinction between strict and non-strict well orders is often ignored since they
are easily interconvertible.
Every well-ordered set is uniquely order isomorphic to a unique ordinal number, called the order type of the well-
ordered set. The well-ordering theorem, which is equivalent to the axiom of choice, states that every set can be well
ordered. If a set is well ordered (or even if it merely admits a well-founded relation), the proof technique of transnite
induction can be used to prove that a given statement is true for all elements of the set.
The observation that the natural numbers are well ordered by the usual less-than relation is commonly called the
well-ordering principle (for natural numbers).
Every well-ordered set is uniquely order isomorphic to a unique ordinal number, called the order type of the well-
ordered set. The position of each element within the ordered set is also given by an ordinal number. In the case of a
nite set, the basic operation of counting, to nd the ordinal number of a particular object, or to nd the object with
a particular ordinal number, corresponds to assigning ordinal numbers one by one to the objects. The size (number
of elements, cardinal number) of a nite set is equal to the order type. Counting in the everyday sense typically starts
from one, so it assigns to each object the size of the initial segment with that object as last element. Note that these
numbers are one more than the formal ordinal numbers according to the isomorphic order, because these are equal
to the number of earlier objects (which corresponds to counting from zero). Thus for nite n, the expression "n-th
element of a well-ordered set requires context to know whether this counts from zero or one. In a notation "-th
element where can also be an innite ordinal, it will typically count from zero.
For an innite set the order type determines the cardinality, but not conversely: well-ordered sets of a particular
cardinality can have many dierent order types. For a countably innite set, the set of possible order types is even
uncountable.
264
72.2. EXAMPLES AND COUNTEREXAMPLES 265
0 2 4 6 8 ... 1 3 5 7 9 ...
This is a well-ordered set of order type + . Every element has a successor (there is no largest element). Two
elements lack a predecessor: 0 and 1.
72.2.2 Integers
Unlike the standard ordering of the natural numbers, the standard ordering of the integers is not a well ordering,
since, for example, the set of negative integers does not contain a least element.
The following relation R is an example of well ordering of the integers: x R y if and only if one of the following
conditions holds:
1. x = 0
2. x is positive, and y is negative
3. x and y are both positive, and x y
4. x and y are both negative, and |x| |y|
0 1 2 3 4 ... 1 2 3 ...
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 ...
72.2.3 Reals
The standard ordering of any real interval is not a well ordering, since, for example, the open interval (0, 1) [0,1]
does not contain a least element. From the ZFC axioms of set theory (including the axiom of choice) one can show
that there is a well order of the reals. Also Wacaw Sierpiski proved that ZF + GCH (the generalized continuum
hypothesis) imply the axiom of choice and hence a well order of the reals. Nonetheless, it is possible to show that
the ZFC+GCH axioms alone are not sucient to prove the existence of a denable (by a formula) well order of
the reals.[1] However it is consistent with ZFC that a denable well ordering of the reals existsfor example, it is
consistent with ZFC that V=L, and it follows from ZFC+V=L that a particular formula well orders the reals, or indeed
any set.
An uncountable subset of the real numbers with the standard ordering cannot be a well order: Suppose X is a subset
of R well ordered by . For each x in X, let s(x) be the successor of x in ordering on X (unless x is the last element
of X). Let A = { (x, s(x)) | x X } whose elements are nonempty and disjoint intervals. Each such interval contains
266 CHAPTER 72. WELL-ORDER
at least one rational number, so there is an injective function from A to Q. There is an injection from X to A (except
possibly for a last element of X which could be mapped to zero later). And it is well known that there is an injection
from Q to the natural numbers (which could be chosen to avoid hitting zero). Thus there is an injection from X to the
natural numbers which means that X is countable. On the other hand, a countably innite subset of the reals may or
may not be a well order with the standard "". For example,
The natural numbers are a well order under the standard ordering .
The set {1/n : n =1,2,3,...} has no least element and is therefore not a well order under standard ordering .
1. The set is well ordered. That is, every nonempty subset has a least element.
2. Transnite induction works for the entire ordered set.
3. Every strictly decreasing sequence of elements of the set must terminate after only nitely many steps (assuming
the axiom of dependent choice).
4. Every subordering is isomorphic to an initial segment.
isolated points - these are the minimum and the elements with a predecessor.
limit points - this type does not occur in nite sets, and may or may not occur in an innite set; the innite sets
without limit point are the sets of order type , for example N.
Subsets with a maximum (that is, subsets which are bounded by themselves); this can be an isolated point or a
limit point of the whole set; in the latter case it may or may not be also a limit point of the subset.
Subsets which are unbounded by themselves but bounded in the whole set; they have no maximum, but a
supremum outside the subset; if the subset is non-empty this supremum is a limit point of the subset and hence
also of the whole set; if the subset is empty this supremum is the minimum of the whole set.
Subsets which are unbounded in the whole set.
A subset is conal in the whole set if and only if it is unbounded in the whole set or it has a maximum which is also
maximum of the whole set.
A well-ordered set as topological space is a rst-countable space if and only if it has order type less than or equal to
1 (omega-one), that is, if and only if the set is countable or has the smallest uncountable order type.
72.5. SEE ALSO 267
Well-ordering theorem
Ordinal number
Well-founded set
Directed set
72.6 References
[1] S. Feferman: Some Applications of the Notions of Forcing and Generic Sets, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 56 (1964)
325-345
Folland, Gerald B. (1999). Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications. Pure and applied math-
ematics (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 46, 9. ISBN 978-0-471-31716-6.
Chapter 73
Well-quasi-ordering
In mathematics, specically order theory, a well-quasi-ordering or wqo is a quasi-ordering such that any innite
sequence of elements x0 , x1 , x2 , from X contains an increasing pair xi xj with i < j .
73.1 Motivation
Well-founded induction can be used on any set with a well-founded relation, thus one is interested in when a quasi-
order is well-founded. However the class of well-founded quasiorders is not closed under certain operationsthat
is, when a quasi-order is used to obtain a new quasi-order on a set of structures derived from our original set, this
quasiorder is found to be not well-founded. By placing stronger restrictions on the original well-founded quasiordering
one can hope to ensure that our derived quasiorderings are still well-founded.
An example of this is the power set operation. Given a quasiordering for a set X one can dene a quasiorder +
on X 's power set P (X) by setting A + B if and only if for each element of A one can nd some element of B
that is larger than it under . One can show that this quasiordering on P (X) needn't be well-founded, but if one
takes the original quasi-ordering to be a well-quasi-ordering, then it is.
73.3 Examples
(N, ) , the set of natural numbers with standard ordering, is a well partial order (in fact, a well-order). How-
ever, (Z, ) , the set of positive and negative integers, is not a well-quasi-order, because it is not well-founded.
(N, |) , the set of natural numbers ordered by divisibility, is not a well partial order: the prime numbers are an
innite antichain.
(Nk , ) , the set of vectors of k natural numbers (where k is nite) with component-wise ordering, is a well
partial order (Dicksons lemma). More generally, if (X, ) is well-quasi-order, then (X k , k ) is also a well-
quasi-order for all k .
268
73.4. WQOS VERSUS WELL PARTIAL ORDERS 269
Let X be an arbitrary nite set with at least two elements. The set X of words over X ordered lexicographically
(as in a dictionary) is not a well-quasi-order because it contains the innite decreasing sequence b, ab, aab, aaab, . . .
. Similarly, X ordered by the prex relation is not a well-quasi-order, because the previous sequence is an in-
nite antichain of this partial order. However, X ordered by the subsequence relation is a well partial order.[1]
(If X has only one element, these three partial orders are identical.)
More generally, (X , ) , the set of nite X -sequences ordered by embedding is a well-quasi-order if and
only if (X, ) is a well-quasi-order (Higmans lemma). Recall that one embeds a sequence u into a sequence v
by nding a subsequence of v that has the same length as u and that dominates it term by term. When (X, =)
is a nite unordered set, u v if and only if u is a subsequence of v .
(X , ) , the set of innite sequences over a well-quasi-order (X, ) , ordered by embedding, is not a well-
quasi-order in general. That is, Higmans lemma does not carry over to innite sequences. Better-quasi-
orderings have been introduced to generalize Higmans lemma to sequences of arbitrary lengths.
Embedding between nite trees with nodes labeled by elements of a wqo (X, ) is a wqo (Kruskals tree
theorem).
Embedding between innite trees with nodes labeled by elements of a wqo (X, ) is a wqo (Nash-Williams'
theorem).
Embedding between countable scattered linear order types is a well-quasi-order (Laver's theorem).
Embedding between countable boolean algebras is a well-quasi-order. This follows from Lavers theorem and
a theorem of Ketonen.
Finite graphs ordered by a notion of embedding called "graph minor" is a well-quasi-order (RobertsonSeymour
theorem).
Graphs of nite tree-depth ordered by the induced subgraph relation form a well-quasi-order,[2] as do the
cographs ordered by induced subgraphs.[3]
A quasiordering is a wqo if and only if the corresponding partial order (obtained by quotienting by x y
x y y x ) has no innite descending sequences or antichains. (This can be proved using a Ramsey
argument as above.)
Given a well-quasi-ordering (X, ) , any sequence of subsets S0 S1 ... X such that i N, x, y
X, x yx Si y Si eventually stabilises (meaning there is an index n N such that Sn = Sn+1 = ...
; subsets S X with the property x, y X, x y x S y S are usually called upward-closed):
assuming the contrary i Nj N, j > i, x Sj \ Si , a contradiction is reached by extracting an innite
non-ascending subsequence.
Given a well-quasi-ordering (X, ) , any subset S X which is upward-closed with respect to has a nite
number of minimal elements w.r.t. , for otherwise the minimal elements of S would constitute an innite
antichain.
73.7 Notes
^ Here x < y means: x y and y x.
[1] Gasarch, W. (1998), A survey of recursive combinatorics, Handbook of Recursive Mathematics, Vol. 2, Stud. Logic
Found. Math., 139, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 10411176, MR 1673598, doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(98)80049-9.
See in particular page 1160.
[2] Neetil, Jaroslav; Ossona de Mendez, Patrice (2012), Lemma 6.13, Sparsity: Graphs, Structures, and Algorithms, Algo-
rithms and Combinatorics, 28, Heidelberg: Springer, p. 137, ISBN 978-3-642-27874-7, MR 2920058, doi:10.1007/978-
3-642-27875-4.
[3] Damaschke, Peter (1990), Induced subgraphs and well-quasi-ordering, Journal of Graph Theory, 14 (4): 427435, MR
1067237, doi:10.1002/jgt.3190140406.
[4] Forster, Thomas (2003). Better-quasi-orderings and coinduction. Theoretical Computer Science. 309 (13): 111123.
doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(03)00131-2.
73.8 References
Dickson, L. E. (1913). Finiteness of the odd perfect and primitive abundant numbers with r distinct prime
factors. American Journal of Mathematics. 35 (4): 413422. JSTOR 2370405. doi:10.2307/2370405.
Higman, G. (1952). Ordering by divisibility in abstract algebras. Proceedings of the London Mathematical
Society. 2: 326336. doi:10.1112/plms/s3-2.1.326.
Kruskal, J. B. (1972). The theory of well-quasi-ordering: A frequently discovered concept. Journal of
Combinatorial Theory. Series A. 13 (3): 297305. doi:10.1016/0097-3165(72)90063-5.
Ketonen, Jussi (1978). The structure of countable Boolean algebras. Annals of Mathematics. 108 (1): 4189.
JSTOR 1970929. doi:10.2307/1970929.
Milner, E. C. (1985). Basic WQO- and BQO-theory. In Rival, I. Graphs and Order. The Role of Graphs in
the Theory of Ordered Sets and Its Applications. D. Reidel Publishing Co. pp. 487502. ISBN 90-277-1943-8.
Gallier, Jean H. (1991). Whats so special about Kruskals theorem and the ordinal o? A survey of some re-
sults in proof theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. 53 (3): 199260. doi:10.1016/0168-0072(91)90022-
E.
Rlupsa, Marek69, Fayenatic london, JAnDbot, MER-C, TAnthony, Magioladitis, Vanish2, Avicennasis, David Eppstein, Robin S, Akurn,
Adavidb, LajujKej, Owlgorithm, Djjrjr, Policron, DavidCBryant, Quux0r, VolkovBot, Boute, Vipinhari, Anonymous Dissident, PaulTa-
nenbaum, Jackfork, Wykypydya, Dmcq, AlleborgoBot, AHMartin, Ocsenave, Sftd, Paradoctor, Henry Delforn (old), MiNombreDeGuerra,
DuaneLAnderson, Anchor Link Bot, CBM2, Classicalecon, ClueBot, Snigbrook, Rhubbarb, Hans Adler, SounderBruce, SilvonenBot,
BYS2, Plmday, Addbot, LinkFA-Bot, Tide rolls, Jarble, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ht686rg90, Lesliepogi, Pcap, Labus, Nallim-
bot, Reindra, FredrikMeyer, AnomieBOT, Floquenbeam, Royote, Hahahaha4, Materialscientist, Belkovich, Citation bot, Racconish,
Jellystones, Xqbot, Isheden, Geero, GhalyBot, Ernsts, Howard McCay, Constructive editor, Mark Renier, Mfwitten, RandomDSdevel,
NearSetAccount, SpaceFlight89, Yunshui, Miracle Pen, Brambleclawx, RjwilmsiBot, Nomen4Omen, Chharvey, SporkBot, OnePt618,
Sameer143, Socialservice, ResearchRave, ClueBot NG, Wcherowi, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Koertefa, BG19bot, ChrisGualtieri,
YFdyh-bot, Dexbot, Makecat-bot, ScitDei, Lerutit, Jochen Burghardt, Jodosma, Karim132, Cosmia Nebula, Monkbot, Pratincola, ,
Neycalazans, Some1Redirects4You, The Quixotic Potato, Luis150902, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 114
Cointerpretability Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointerpretability?oldid=758760624 Contributors: Charles Matthews, Dys-
prosia, Kntg, PWilkinson, Aleph0~enwiki, Oleg Alexandrov, Mathbot, Gregbard, David Eppstein, Hans Adler, Gamewizard71 and
Anonymous: 1
Comparability Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparability?oldid=794455109 Contributors: Patrick, Charles Matthews, Tea2min,
Tsirel, Oleg Alexandrov, Rjwilmsi, Archelon, 16@r, Mets501, CharacterZero, ThreeBlindMice, THF, David Eppstein, PaulTanenbaum,
Burdel britnico, Justin W Smith, SchreiberBike, Yobot, Gamewizard71, ChuispastonBot, Snotbot, Ollieinc, Jochen Burghardt and
Anonymous: 5
Composition of relations Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_relations?oldid=783534848 Contributors: Rp, AugPi,
Charles Matthews, Tea2min, Giftlite, EmilJ, Oliphaunt, MFH, SixWingedSeraph, MarSch, Nbarth, Lambiam, Happy-melon, CBM, Sam
Staton, David Eppstein, Chiswick Chap, Synthebot, Classicalecon, Hans Adler, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Pcap, FrescoBot, Gamewiz-
ard71, Quondum, Wcherowi, Nbrader, Agile Antechinus, DeathOfBalance, JMP EAX, Bender the Bot, Magic links bot and Anonymous:
8
Congruence relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence_relation?oldid=794453149 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Toby~enwiki,
Toby Bartels, Michael Hardy, Charles Matthews, Jitse Niesen, Greenrd, Aleph4, Romanm, MathMartin, Henrygb, Tosha, Giftlite, Arved,
Waltpohl, Mani1, ZeroOne, Boger1, PWilkinson, WojciechSwiderski~enwiki, Bookandcoee, Oleg Alexandrov, Bluemoose, Marudub-
shinki, Pako, Pasky, Kevmitch, DavidHouse~enwiki, Reyk, Netrapt, SmackBot, Imz, Mgreenbe, BiT, Mhss, Bluebot, Mohamed Al-
Dabbagh, Jim.belk, Mets501, Vaughan Pratt, CRGreathouse, CBM, Sam Staton, Goldencako, Thijs!bot, Gdickeson, JAnDbot, Magio-
laditis, JoergenB, VolkovBot, EuTuga, Anchor Link Bot, Amahoney, Sandeepjshenoy, Hans Adler, Palnot, Addbot, Mancini0, Legobot,
Yobot, Calle, DannyAsher, Obersachsebot, GrouchoBot, FrescoBot, Stpasta, TobeBot, Dinamik-bot, Ayamewolfe, EmausBot, ZroBot,
Toshio Yamaguchi, Elaz85, Anita5192, MerlIwBot, SteenthIWbot, Jochen Burghardt, Pietro13, Dizzyzane, Magic links bot and Anony-
mous: 35
Contour set Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_set?oldid=786602004 Contributors: Giftlite, John Quiggin, Ms2ger, CBM,
WillowW, Arch dude, David Eppstein, SlamDiego, RockMFR, Addbot, Xp54321, Econotechie, AndersBot, Flewis, Kornsystem69,
WaysToEscape, Neil P. Quinn, Marcocapelle, MahdiBot, Yamaha5, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 1
Covering relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering_relation?oldid=798042015 Contributors: Rp, Aleph4, Rjwilmsi, Michael
Slone, Nbarth, Mr Stephen, Gregbard, David Eppstein, R'n'B, PaulTanenbaum, Arcfrk, Addbot, Jamiguet, Yobot, LucienBOT, BG19bot,
Solomon7968, Jochen Burghardt, , Alabarre, KolbertBot and Anonymous: 1
Demonic composition Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_composition?oldid=633771432 Contributors: Michael Hardy,
David Eppstein, LokiClock, Classicalecon, AnomieBOT and Anonymous: 2
Dense order Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_order?oldid=794453275 Contributors: EmilJ, Physicistjedi, MarSch, Michael
Slone, SmackBot, Imz, Melchoir, Turms, JAnDbot, David Eppstein, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT, Palnot, Addbot, ., Pcap, Erik9bot,
Tom.Reding, ZroBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Qetuth, Jochen Burghardt, Brirush, GeoreyT2000, tale.cohomology, Magic links bot and
Anonymous: 6
Dependence relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependence_relation?oldid=794455154 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Charles
Matthews, Jitse Niesen, Josh Parris, Wavelength, Robbjedi, Keegan, Geometry guy, 777sms and Jochen Burghardt
Dependency relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_relation?oldid=794455330 Contributors: Michael Hardy, William
M. Connolley, GPHemsley, Robbot, Wizzy, Goochelaar, Linas, Nihiltres, Jsnx, SmackBot, Chris the speller, NickPenguin, Mukake, David
Eppstein, Homei, Classicalecon, Addbot, Yobot, WikitanvirBot, Jochen Burghardt, Mark viking, W. P. Uzer, Christian Nassif-Haynes,
JMP EAX and Anonymous: 4
Difunctional Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation?oldid=796087488 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Bryan Derksen, Zun-
dark, Tarquin, Jan Hidders, Roadrunner, Mjb, Tomo, Patrick, Xavic69, Michael Hardy, Wshun, Isomorphic, Dominus, Ixfd64, Takuya-
Murata, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Dcoetzee, Jitse Niesen, Robbot, Chocolateboy, MathMartin, Tea2min, Giftlite, Fropu, Dratman,
Jorge Stol, Jlr~enwiki, Andycjp, Quarl, Guanabot, Yuval madar, Slipstream, Paul August, Elwikipedista~enwiki, Shanes, EmilJ, Ran-
dall Holmes, Ardric47, Obradovic Goran, Eje211, Alansohn, Dallashan~enwiki, Keenan Pepper, PAR, Adrian.benko, Oleg Alexan-
drov, Joriki, Linas, Apokrif, MFH, Dpv, Pigcatian, Penumbra2000, Fresheneesz, Chobot, YurikBot, Hairy Dude, Koeyahoo, Trova-
tore, Bota47, Arthur Rubin, Netrapt, SmackBot, Royalguard11, SEIBasaurus, Cybercobra, Jon Awbrey, Turms, Lambiam, Dbtfz, Mr
Stephen, Mets501, Dreftymac, Happy-melon, Petr Matas, CRGreathouse, CBM, Yrodro, WillowW, Xantharius, Thijs!bot, Egrin,
Rlupsa, Marek69, Fayenatic london, JAnDbot, MER-C, TAnthony, Magioladitis, Vanish2, Avicennasis, David Eppstein, Robin S, Akurn,
Adavidb, LajujKej, Owlgorithm, Djjrjr, Policron, DavidCBryant, Quux0r, VolkovBot, Boute, Vipinhari, Anonymous Dissident, PaulTa-
nenbaum, Jackfork, Wykypydya, Dmcq, AlleborgoBot, AHMartin, Ocsenave, Sftd, Paradoctor, Henry Delforn (old), MiNombreDeGuerra,
DuaneLAnderson, Anchor Link Bot, CBM2, Classicalecon, ClueBot, Snigbrook, Rhubbarb, Hans Adler, SounderBruce, SilvonenBot,
BYS2, Plmday, Addbot, LinkFA-Bot, Tide rolls, Jarble, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ht686rg90, Lesliepogi, Pcap, Labus, Nallim-
bot, Reindra, FredrikMeyer, AnomieBOT, Floquenbeam, Royote, Hahahaha4, Materialscientist, Belkovich, Citation bot, Racconish,
Jellystones, Xqbot, Isheden, Geero, GhalyBot, Ernsts, Howard McCay, Constructive editor, Mark Renier, Mfwitten, RandomDSdevel,
NearSetAccount, SpaceFlight89, Yunshui, Miracle Pen, Brambleclawx, RjwilmsiBot, Nomen4Omen, Chharvey, SporkBot, OnePt618,
Sameer143, Socialservice, ResearchRave, ClueBot NG, Wcherowi, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Koertefa, BG19bot, ChrisGualtieri,
YFdyh-bot, Dexbot, Makecat-bot, ScitDei, Lerutit, Jochen Burghardt, Jodosma, Karim132, Cosmia Nebula, Monkbot, Pratincola, ,
Neycalazans, Some1Redirects4You, The Quixotic Potato, Luis150902, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 114
73.10. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 273
Directed set Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_set?oldid=794455379 Contributors: AxelBoldt, The Anome, SimonP, Patrick,
Michael Hardy, AugPi, Nikai, Revolver, Dfeuer, Dysprosia, Tea2min, Giftlite, Markus Krtzsch, Smimram, Paul August, Varuna,
Msh210, Eric Kvaalen, SteinbDJ, Linas, Dionyziz, Salix alba, Margosbot~enwiki, Hairy Dude, Zwobot, Futanari, Reedy, Fitch, Mhss,
Vaughan Pratt, CBM, Blaisorblade, Larvy, JoergenB, CommonsDelinker, LokiClock, Don4of4, AlleborgoBot, SieBot, Tom Leinster,
He7d3r, Beroal, Palnot, Plmday, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Obersachsebot, Yaddie, ZroBot, Haraldbre, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Freeze
S, Jochen Burghardt, Zoydb, Austrartsua, Some1Redirects4You, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 30
Equality (mathematics) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)?oldid=801814534 Contributors: Toby Bartels,
Patrick, Michael Hardy, TakuyaMurata, Looxix~enwiki, Pizza Puzzle, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, WhisperToMe, Banno, Robbot,
RedWolf, Lowellian, Tea2min, Alan Liefting, Giftlite, Christopher Parham, Recentchanges, Michael Devore, Jabowery, DefLog~enwiki,
Chowbok, Smiller933, Shahab, AlexG, Wrp103, Plugwash, Rgdboer, Spoon!, Iltseng, PWilkinson, MPerel, Jumbuck, Msh210, Hu,
Japanese Searobin, Simetrical, Linas, MattGiuca, Isnow, Wbeek, Qwertyus, Island, Scottkeir, Jshadias, Pasky, FlaBot, VKokielov, Mar-
gosbot~enwiki, Fresheneesz, Chobot, DVdm, Gwernol, Laurentius, Hairy Dude, Pi Delport, Pnrj, TransUtopian, Reyk, Tinlv7, SmackBot,
RDBury, Incnis Mrsi, Melchoir, Blue520, Josephprymak, BiT, Gilliam, Bluebot, Nbarth, Jdthood, Jon Awbrey, Lambiam, Attys, Load-
master, Mets501, Tauolunga, CBM, Sdorrance, Simeon, Gregbard, Cydebot, Benzi455, Blaisorblade, Xantharius, Uv~enwiki, Marek69,
Cj67, Dugwiki, AntiVandalBot, Widefox, Malcolm, JAnDbot, Thenub314, Edward321, R'n'B, Policron, Alan U. Kennington, Anony-
mous Dissident, PaulTanenbaum, UnitedStatesian, Enigmaman, Vikrant42, Tachikomas All Memory, Flyer22 Reborn, Ctxppc, Clue-
Bot, BodhisattvaBot, SilvonenBot, Addbot, Debresser, Numbo3-bot, Apteva, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Amirobot,
Pcap, KamikazeBot, Ningauble, Bryan.burgers, MassimoAr, AnomieBOT, Kingpin13, Citation bot, Capricorn42, Kevfest08, NOrbeck,
VladimirReshetnikov, Der Falke, FrescoBot, Tkuvho, AmphBot, RedBot, Jauhienij, TobeBot, Belovedeagle, Vrenator, CobraBot, Duo-
duoduo, Ebe123, ZroBot, Sungzungkim, D.Lazard, ClueBot NG, Iiii I I I, Wcherowi, Faus, Titodutta, ChrisGualtieri, Jochen Burghardt,
Brirush, DialaceStarvy, Monkbot, Sunmist, Loraof, Samf4u, Lizard Pancakes123456789012345678901234567890, Gmalaven, This is
a mobile phone, Deacon Vorbis and Anonymous: 85
Equipollence (geometry) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipollence_(geometry)?oldid=801931499 Contributors: Michael Hardy,
Mdob, Rgdboer, Siddhant, Sadads, Cydebot, Addbot, Omnipaedista, Erik9bot, J.Victor, Specs112, Makhokh, Brad7777, Jochen Burghardt,
JJMC89, InternetArchiveBot, Cyrus the Penner, KolbertBot and Anonymous: 1
Equivalence class Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_class?oldid=794453377 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Zundark, The
Anome, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Wshun, Salsa Shark, Revolver, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, Wolfgang Kufner, Greenrd, Hyacinth,
Psychonaut, Naddy, GreatWhiteNortherner, Tea2min, Giftlite, WiseWoman, Lethe, Fropu, Fuzzy Logic, Noisy, Tibbetts, Liuyao,
Rgdboer, Msh210, MattGiuca, Graham87, Salix alba, Mike Segal, Jameshsher, Laurentius, Hede2000, Arthur Rubin, Paul D. Anderson,
Lunch, SmackBot, Mhss, Nbarth, Javalenok, Jennica, Lhf, Frentos, Mets501, Andrew Delong, Egrin, Magioladitis, David Eppstein,
VolkovBot, LokiClock, Rjgodoy, Quietbritishjim, Dogah, Henry Delforn (old), Sjn28, Classicalecon, Watchduck, Kausikghatak, Addbot,
Jasper Deng, WikiDreamer Bot, Yobot, Calle, Rinke 80, Omnipaedista, Erik9bot, HJ Mitchell, WillNess, Igor Yalovecky, Quondum,
D.Lazard, Herebo, Wcherowi, Rpglover64, ChrisGualtieri, Jochen Burghardt, Brirush, Mark viking, A4b3c2d1e0f, Riddleh, Verdana
Bold, Norbornene, Addoergosum, Anareth, Ehatan, Tt8612399 and Anonymous: 49
Equivalence relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation?oldid=801840162 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Zundark,
Toby Bartels, PierreAbbat, Ryguasu, Stevertigo, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Wshun, Dominus, TakuyaMurata, William M. Connolley, AugPi,
Silversh, Ideyal, Revolver, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, Hyacinth, Fibonacci, Phys, McKay, GPHemsley, Robbot, Fredrik, Romanm,
COGDEN, Ashley Y, Bkell, Tea2min, Tosha, Giftlite, Arved, ShaunMacPherson, Lethe, Herbee, Fropu, LiDaobing, AlexG, Paul Au-
gust, Elwikipedista~enwiki, FirstPrinciples, Rgdboer, Spearhead, Smalljim, SpeedyGonsales, Obradovic Goran, Haham hanuka, Kier-
ano, Msh210, Keenan Pepper, PAR, Jopxton, Oleg Alexandrov, Linas, Apokrif, MFH, BD2412, Salix alba, Alexb@cut-the-knot.com,
Mark J, Epitome83, Chobot, Algebraist, Roboto de Ajvol, YurikBot, Wavelength, RussBot, Nils Grimsmo, BOT-Superzerocool, Googl,
LarryLACa, Arthur Rubin, Pred, Cjfsyntropy, Draicone, RonnieBrown, SmackBot, Adam majewski, Melchoir, Stie, Srnec, Gilliam,
Gelingvistoj, Kurykh, Concerned cynic, Foxjwill, Vanished User 0001, Michael Ross, Jon Awbrey, Jim.belk, Feraudyh, CredoFromStart,
Michael Kinyon, JHunterJ, Vanished user 8ij3r8jwe, Mets501, Rschwieb, Captain Wacky, JForget, CRGreathouse, CBM, 345Kai,
Gregbard, Doctormatt, PepijnvdG, Tawkerbot4, Xantharius, Hanche, BetacommandBot, Thijs!bot, Egrin, Rlupsa, WilliamH, Rnealh,
Salgueiro~enwiki, JAnDbot, Thenub314, Magioladitis, VoABot II, JamesBWatson, MetsBot, Robin S, Philippe.beaudoin, Pekaje, Pomte,
Interwal, Cpiral, GaborLajos, Policron, Taifunbrowser, Idioma-bot, Station1, Davehi1, Billinghurst, Geanixx, AlleborgoBot, SieBot, Bot-
Multichill, This, that and the other, Henry Delforn (old), Aspects, OKBot, Bulkroosh, C1wang, Classicalecon, Wmli, Kclchan, Watch-
duck, Hans Adler, Qwfp, Cdegremo, Palnot, XLinkBot, Gerhardvalentin, Libcub, LaaknorBot, CarsracBot, Dyaa, Legobot, Luckas-bot,
Yobot, Ht686rg90, Gyro Copter, TheresNoTime, Andy.melnikov, ArthurBot, Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Lenore, RibotBOT, Antares5245,
FrescoBot, Sokbot3000, Anthonystevens2, ARandomNicole, Lost-n-translation, Tkuvho, SpaceFlight89, TobeBot, Miracle Pen, Emaus-
Bot, ReneGMata, AvicBot, General Rommel, TyA, Donner60, Gottlob Gdel, ClueBot NG, Bethre, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Mark
Arsten, ChrisGualtieri, Rectipaedia, YFdyh-bot, Jochen Burghardt, Rushikeshjogdand1, David9550, Noix07, Adammwagner, Damon-
amc, Superegz, Razvan.belet, InternetArchiveBot, Anareth, Quiddital, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 113
Euclidean relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_relation?oldid=794389209 Contributors: Toby Bartels, Giftlite,
EmilJ, PAR, Apokrif, Salix alba, Hairy Dude, Otto ter Haar, Lhf, Turms, Gregbard, Egrin, David Eppstein, Robertgreer, Cdegremo,
Yobot, Yangtseyangtse, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bender the Bot and Anonymous: 7
Exceptional isomorphism Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptional_isomorphism?oldid=793941144 Contributors: Michael
Hardy, Charles Matthews, Tea2min, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, GnniX, Wavelength, SmackBot, Nbarth, Tamfang, Headbomb, David Eppstein,
Maxzimet, Citation bot, Twri, Jamontaldi, Teddyktchan and Anonymous: 5
Fiber (mathematics) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_(mathematics)?oldid=798233635 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Chinju,
Charles Matthews, Bkonrad, Oleg Alexandrov, Christopher Thomas, MarSch, LkNsngth, Jon Awbrey, Krasnoludek, JRSpriggs, CBM,
Kilva, OrenBochman, Camrn86, LokiClock, Dmcq, JP.Martin-Flatin, Addbot, Ptbotgourou, Ciphers, Erik9bot, Artem M. Pelenitsyn,
Tom.Reding, ZroBot, Roman3, Beaumont877, Qetuth, SillyBunnies, Deacon Vorbis, Volunteer1234 and Anonymous: 9
Finitary relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitary_relation?oldid=782854645 Contributors: Damian Yerrick, AxelBoldt,
The Anome, Tarquin, Jan Hidders, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Wshun, Kku, Ellywa, Andres, Charles Matthews, Dcoetzee, Hyacinth,
Robbot, Romanm, MathMartin, Tea2min, Alan Liefting, Marc Venot, Giftlite, Almit39, Zfr, Starx, PhotoBox, Erc, ArnoldReinhold,
Paul August, Elwikipedista~enwiki, Randall Holmes, Obradovic Goran, Oleg Alexandrov, Woohookitty, Mangojuice, Michiel Helven-
steijn, Isnow, Qwertyus, Dpr, MarSch, Salix alba, Oblivious, Mathbot, Jrtayloriv, Chobot, YurikBot, Hairy Dude, Dmharvey, RussBot,
274 CHAPTER 73. WELL-QUASI-ORDERING
Muu-karhu, Zwobot, Bota47, Arthur Rubin, Reyk, Netrapt, Claygate, JoanneB, Pred, GrinBot~enwiki, SmackBot, Mmernex, Uny-
oyega, Nbarth, DHN-bot~enwiki, Tinctorius, Jon Awbrey, Henning Makholm, Lambiam, Dfass, Newone, Aeons, CRGreathouse, Greg-
bard, King Bee, Kilva, Escarbot, Salgueiro~enwiki, Nosbig, JAnDbot, .anacondabot, Tarif Ezaz, VoABot II, Jonny Cache, DerHexer,
R'n'B, Mike.lifeguard, And Dedicated To, Aervanath, VolkovBot, Rponamgi, The Tetrast, Mscman513, GirasoleDE, Newbyguesses,
SieBot, Phe-bot, Paolo.dL, Siorale, Skeptical scientist, Sheez Louise, Mild Bill Hiccup, DragonBot, Cenarium, Palnot, Cat Dancer WS,
Kal-El-Bot, Addbot, MrOllie, ChenzwBot, Ariel Black, SpBot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Bgttgb, QueenCake, Dinnertimeok, AnomieBOT,
Jim1138, JRB-Europe, Xqbot, Nishantjr, Anne Bauval, Howard McCay, Paine Ellsworth, Throw it in the Fire, RandomDSdevel, Miracle
Pen, Mean as custard, Straightontillmorning, ZroBot, Cackleberry Airman, Paulmiko, Tijfo098, Mister Stan, ClueBot NG, Deer*lake,
Frietjes, BG19bot, ChrisGualtieri, Fuebar, Brirush, Mark viking, Andrei Petre, 65HCA7, KasparBot, Some1Redirects4You, MA-
HONEY.ALTMAN, Amintajdar and Anonymous: 53
Foundational relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundational_relation?oldid=794455597 Contributors: Michael Hardy,
BiH, IkamusumeFan and Jochen Burghardt
Homogeneous relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation?oldid=796087488 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Bryan Derk-
sen, Zundark, Tarquin, Jan Hidders, Roadrunner, Mjb, Tomo, Patrick, Xavic69, Michael Hardy, Wshun, Isomorphic, Dominus, Ixfd64,
TakuyaMurata, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Dcoetzee, Jitse Niesen, Robbot, Chocolateboy, MathMartin, Tea2min, Giftlite, Fropu,
Dratman, Jorge Stol, Jlr~enwiki, Andycjp, Quarl, Guanabot, Yuval madar, Slipstream, Paul August, Elwikipedista~enwiki, Shanes,
EmilJ, Randall Holmes, Ardric47, Obradovic Goran, Eje211, Alansohn, Dallashan~enwiki, Keenan Pepper, PAR, Adrian.benko, Oleg
Alexandrov, Joriki, Linas, Apokrif, MFH, Dpv, Pigcatian, Penumbra2000, Fresheneesz, Chobot, YurikBot, Hairy Dude, Koeyahoo,
Trovatore, Bota47, Arthur Rubin, Netrapt, SmackBot, Royalguard11, SEIBasaurus, Cybercobra, Jon Awbrey, Turms, Lambiam, Dbtfz,
Mr Stephen, Mets501, Dreftymac, Happy-melon, Petr Matas, CRGreathouse, CBM, Yrodro, WillowW, Xantharius, Thijs!bot, Egrif-
n, Rlupsa, Marek69, Fayenatic london, JAnDbot, MER-C, TAnthony, Magioladitis, Vanish2, Avicennasis, David Eppstein, Robin
S, Akurn, Adavidb, LajujKej, Owlgorithm, Djjrjr, Policron, DavidCBryant, Quux0r, VolkovBot, Boute, Vipinhari, Anonymous Dis-
sident, PaulTanenbaum, Jackfork, Wykypydya, Dmcq, AlleborgoBot, AHMartin, Ocsenave, Sftd, Paradoctor, Henry Delforn (old), Mi-
NombreDeGuerra, DuaneLAnderson, Anchor Link Bot, CBM2, Classicalecon, ClueBot, Snigbrook, Rhubbarb, Hans Adler, Sounder-
Bruce, SilvonenBot, BYS2, Plmday, Addbot, LinkFA-Bot, Tide rolls, Jarble, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ht686rg90, Lesliepogi, Pcap,
Labus, Nallimbot, Reindra, FredrikMeyer, AnomieBOT, Floquenbeam, Royote, Hahahaha4, Materialscientist, Belkovich, Citation bot,
Racconish, Jellystones, Xqbot, Isheden, Geero, GhalyBot, Ernsts, Howard McCay, Constructive editor, Mark Renier, Mfwitten, Ran-
domDSdevel, NearSetAccount, SpaceFlight89, Yunshui, Miracle Pen, Brambleclawx, RjwilmsiBot, Nomen4Omen, Chharvey, Spork-
Bot, OnePt618, Sameer143, Socialservice, ResearchRave, ClueBot NG, Wcherowi, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Koertefa, BG19bot,
ChrisGualtieri, YFdyh-bot, Dexbot, Makecat-bot, ScitDei, Lerutit, Jochen Burghardt, Jodosma, Karim132, Cosmia Nebula, Monkbot,
Pratincola, , Neycalazans, Some1Redirects4You, The Quixotic Potato, Luis150902, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 114
Hypostatic abstraction Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_abstraction?oldid=692525468 Contributors: Bevo, MistToys,
El C, Diego Moya, Versageek, Jerey O. Gustafson, Magister Mathematicae, DoubleBlue, TeaDrinker, Brandmeister (old), Closedmouth,
C.Fred, Rajah9, JasonMR, Jon Awbrey, Inhahe, JzG, Slakr, CBM, Gogo Dodo, Hut 8.5, Brigit Zilwaukee, Yolanda Zilwaukee, Karrade,
Mike V, The Tetrast, Rjd0060, Wolf of the Steppes, Doubtentry, Icharus Ixion, Hans Adler, Buchanans Navy Sec, Mr. Peabodys Boy,
Overstay, Marsboat, Unco Guid, Viva La Information Revolution!, Autocratic Uzbek, Poke Salat Annie, Flower Mound Belle, Navy
Pierre, Mrs. Lovetts Meat Puppets, Chester County Dude, Southeast Penna Poppa, Delaware Valley Girl, Denispir, AnomieBOT, Paine
Ellsworth, Gamewizard71, PhnomPencil and Anonymous: 3
Idempotence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence?oldid=801530954 Contributors: Damian Yerrick, AxelBoldt, Zundark,
Taw, Patrick, Chas zzz brown, Michael Hardy, Ahoerstemeier, Stevan White, Andres, Zarius, Revolver, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, Jitse
Niesen, Glimz~enwiki, Hyacinth, Robbot, Mattblack82, Altenmann, Tea2min, Giftlite, Fropu, Pashute, Mboverload, DefLog~enwiki,
J. 'mach' wust, Joseph Myers, Alex Cohn, Tothebarricades.tk, Andreas Kaufmann, Gcanyon, Mormegil, Rgdboer, Kwamikagami, Nigelj,
Sleske, Obradovic Goran, Mdd, Abdulqabiz, Dirac1933, Bookandcoee, Simetrical, Igny, MFH, Grammarbot, Ketiltrout, MarkHudson,
Tokigun, FlaBot, Mathbot, Vonkje, DVdm, Roboto de Ajvol, Angus Lepper, RobotE, Hairy Dude, Michael Slone, Gaius Cornelius,
FuzzyBSc, Aeusoes1, Deskana, Trovatore, Sangwine, Sfnhltb, Crasshopper, Tomisti, Kompik, Cedar101, Evilbu, SmackBot, Elronx-
enu, Octahedron80, Nbarth, Syberghost, Cybercobra, Lambiam, Robosh, Loadmaster, JHunterJ, MedeaMelana, Rschwieb, Alex Selby,
Dreftymac, Happy-melon, CRGreathouse, CmdrObot, CBM, Gregbard, Julian Mendez, Thijs!bot, Kilva, Konradek, DB Durham NC,
RichardVeryard, RobHar, Gioto, Ouc, JAnDbot, Deective, Randal Oulton, Danculley, Vanish2, Albmont, Brewhaha@edmc.net, David
Eppstein, Emw, Cander0000, Stolsvik, Catskineater, Robin S, Gwern, Bostonvaulter, TomyDuby, Krishnachandranvn, Policron, John-
Blackburne, TXiKiBoT, Una Smith, Broadbot, Jamelan, SieBot, LungZeno, Roujo, Ctxppc, Svick, Stjarnblom, Niceguyedc, DragonBot,
Alexbot, He7d3r, Nardog, Herbert1000, Rswarbrick, Qwfp, Vog, Gniemeyer, Addbot, MrOllie, Download, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,
AnomieBOT, Gtz, JackieBot, NOrbeck, Kaoru Itou, DKPHA, RandomDSdevel, Pinethicket, Serols, Ms7821, Duoduoduo, Timtem-
pleton, Peoplemerge, Wham Bam Rock II, Quondum, Dumbier, ClueBot NG, BG19bot, Deltahedron, Jochen Burghardt, 00prometheus,
JaconaFrere, Acominym, Viam Ferream, Loraof, Ira Leviton, CLCStudent, Krebert, InternetArchiveBot, Endless Hair and Anonymous:
91
Idempotent relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotent_relation?oldid=794453466 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Bearcat,
CBM, Deltahedron, Jochen Burghardt and Flokam
Intransitivity Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intransitivity?oldid=794453539 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Chris-martin, Rp,
6birc, Radicalsubversiv, Andres, Charles Matthews, Ruakh, Giftlite, Andris, Quickwik, D6, Xezbeth, Paul August, Jnestorius, Spoon!,
Polluks, SmackBot, Melchoir, Mauls, MisterHand, Lambiam, Iamagloworm, Dinkumator, CRGreathouse, CmdrObot, CBM, Thomas-
meeks, Ael 2, Thijs!bot, VoABot II, Cnilep, Ddxc, Anchor Link Bot, PixelBot, DumZiBoT, Pa68, Addbot, Forich, WissensDrster,
Undsoweiter, HRoestBot, ChronoKinetic, RjwilmsiBot, Uanfala, Chharvey, Diakov, Darcourse, Jochen Burghardt, GeoreyZanders,
Deacon Vorbis and Anonymous: 9
Inverse relation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_relation?oldid=794453831 Contributors: Patrick, Charles Matthews, Al-
tenmann, Tea2min, Giftlite, Kaldari, Spiy sperry, El C, Versageek, Jerey O. Gustafson, MFH, YurikBot, Cedar101, Paul Erik, Knowl-
edgeOfSelf, C.Fred, Nbarth, Faaaa, Nixeagle, Jon Awbrey, Mearnhardtfan, Coredesat, Slakr, DBooth, CBM, Thomasmeeks, Gogo Dodo,
Mojo Hand, Headbomb, Hut 8.5, MetsBot, David Eppstein, Real World Apple, Ars Tottle, VolkovBot, Iamthedeus, Maelgwnbot, Clas-
sicalecon, Rjd0060, Overstay, Trainshift, Pluto Car, Unco Guid, Viva La Information Revolution!, Autocratic Uzbek, Poke Salat Annie,
Flower Mound Belle, Navy Pierre, Mrs. Lovetts Meat Puppets, Chester County Dude, Southeast Penna Poppa, Delaware Valley Girl,
MystBot, Omphaloskeptor, Addbot, Quercus solaris, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Pcap, Materialscientist, MathHisSci, , John of Read-
ing, SporkBot, ClueBot NG, Wcherowi, Jochen Burghardt, Mark viking, JMP EAX, Hdjensofjfnen and Anonymous: 17
73.10. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 275
Mhss, Nbarth, Loodog, Jim.belk, Loadmaster, JRSpriggs, CBM, WeggeBot, Myasuda, Thijs!bot, Nadav1, Escarbot, Albmont, Odexios,
VolkovBot, Don4of4, SieBot, Rumping, Fyyer, Bender2k14, His Wikiness, Palnot, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Jarmiz,
Xqbot, GrouchoBot, Miyagawa, Adrionwells, Mitizhi, RjwilmsiBot, Honestrosewater, Hunterbd, SporkBot, Misshamid, ChrisGualtieri,
Khazar2, Jochen Burghardt, Jose Brox, Wicklet, Leegrc and Anonymous: 32
Well-quasi-ordering Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-quasi-ordering?oldid=801742167 Contributors: Patrick, Chinju, Charles
Matthews, Tea2min, Peter Kwok, Rich Farmbrough, Paul August, EmilJ, R.e.b., Open2universe, PhS, That Guy, From That Show!,
Mets501, Pierre de Lyon, David Eppstein, Kope, R'n'B, Alexwright, Fcarreiro, Niceguyedc, Palnot, Addbot, DOI bot, AnomieBOT, Ci-
tation bot, FrescoBot, Citation bot 1, Gongfarmerzed, John of Reading, ZroBot, , Mastergreg82, Paolo Lipparini, CitationCleanerBot,
Je Erickson, Jochen Burghardt, Mark viking, Quenhitran, Anrnusna, , Gasarch and Anonymous: 7
73.10.2 Images
File:13-Weak-Orders.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/13-Weak-Orders.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: SVG version created by Jafet.vixle at en.wikipedia,
based on a public-domain PNG version created 2006-0 9-14 by David Eppstein
File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work based on: Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat, penubag
File:Arcsecant_Arccosecant.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Arcsecant_Arccosecant.svg License:
CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Geek3
File:Arcsine_Arccosine.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Arcsine_Arccosine.svg License: CC BY-
SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Geek3
File:Arctangent_Arccotangent.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Arctangent_Arccotangent.svg Li-
cense: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Geek3
File:Bijection.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Bijection.svg License: Public domain Contributors:
enwiki Original artist: en:User:Schapel
File:Bijective_composition.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Bijective_composition.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Bimodal.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Bimodal.png License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
File:Bimodal_geological.PNG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Bimodal_geological.PNG License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Tungsten
File:Birkhoff120.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Birkhoff120.svg License: Public domain Contrib-
utors: Own work Original artist: David Eppstein
File:Codomain2.SVG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Codomain2.SVG License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Own work (Original text: I created this work entirely by myself.) Original artist: Damien Karras (talk)
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Orig-
inal artist: ?
File:Complex_ArcCot.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Complex_ArcCot.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Eigenes Werk (own work) made with mathematica Original artist: Jan Homann
File:Complex_ArcCsc.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Complex_ArcCsc.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Eigenes Werk (own work) made with mathematica Original artist: Jan Homann
File:Complex_ArcSec.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Complex_ArcSec.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Eigenes Werk (own work) made with mathematica Original artist: Jan Homann
File:Complex_arccos.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Complex_arccos.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: made with mathematica, own work Original artist: Jan Homann
File:Complex_arcsin.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Complex_arcsin.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: made with mathematica, own work Original artist: Jan Homann
File:Complex_arctan.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Complex_arctan.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: made with mathematica, own work Original artist: Jan Homann
File:Compound_of_five_tetrahedra.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Compound_of_five_tetrahedra.
png License: Attribution Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: ?
File:Congruent_non-congruent_triangles.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Congruent_non-congruent_
triangles.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Lfahlberg
File:Descriptive.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Descriptive.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contrib-
utors: Own work Original artist: ChristopherJamesHenry
File:Descriptively_Near_Sets.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Descriptively_Near_Sets.svg License:
CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: ChristopherJamesHenry
File:Directed_set,_but_no_join_semi-lattice.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Directed_set%2C_
but_no_join_semi-lattice.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jochen Burghardt
File:Dynkin_Diagram_Isomorphisms.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Dynkin_Diagram_Isomorphisms.
svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors:
Connected_Dynkin_Diagrams.svg Original artist: Connected_Dynkin_Diagrams.svg: R. A. Nonenmacher
73.10. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 279