Relations (Relation inside a Relation)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter XodoX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation Relations
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of forming a relation from two existing relations, specifically exploring the idea of a "relation inside a relation." Participants examine how to define and compute this new relation, denoted as R3, based on the provided relations R1 and R2.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two relations, R1 and R2, and questions how to form a new relation R3 from them.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to define what "R1R2" means, indicating that the interpretation will affect the outcome.
  • A third participant suggests that the notation might refer to the composition of relations, denoted as R1 ∘ R2.
  • A later reply elaborates on the composition, providing a detailed explanation of how R3 can be derived from R1 and R2, listing the resulting pairs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of R3, as the initial question remains open to interpretation. There are competing views on how to approach the formation of the new relation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion lacks a clear definition of the operation being performed on R1 and R2, which may lead to different interpretations of the resulting relation R3. The mathematical steps involved in the composition are not universally agreed upon.

XodoX
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
I have a question about what I would call a relation inside a relation. Like:

A={1,2,3) and B={a,b,c}

R1={(a,1) ,(a,3), (b,2), (c,1,), (c,3) }

R2={(a,a), (b,a), (b,c), (c,a) }

R3=R1R2

Like this. I have 2 regular relations. Then I form another relation using these 2. How do I do that? Like if you want to map it or show their common sets.
I would say there's none.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to define what "R1R2" is supposed to mean. The answer will be completely dependent on that definition.
 
Do you mean ##R_1\circ R_2##?
 
It looks like you mean the "composition", the ##R_1 \circ R_2## that micromass suggested. If so then it would be given by;
Since ##R_2## contains (a, a) while ##R_1## contains (a, 1) and (a, 3), ##R_3## contains both (a, 1) and (a, 3). Since ##R_2## contains (b, a) while ##R_1## contains (a, 1) and (a, 3), ##R_3## contains (b, 1) and (b, 3). Since ##R_2## contains (b, c) while ##R_1## contains (c, 1) and (c, 3), ##R_2## contains (b,1) and (b, 3)- but we already have those. Since ##R_2## contains (c, a) while ##R_1## contains (a, 1) (a, 3) ##R_3## contains (c, 1) and (c, 3).

##R_3##= {(a, 1), (a, 3), (b, 1), (b, 3), (c, 1), (c, 3)}.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
482
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
4K