Undergrad What is the Definition of a Relation in Set Theory?

Click For Summary
A relation in set theory is defined as a set of ordered pairs, where the domain (dom) and range (ran) refer to the first and second elements of these pairs, respectively. The exercise states that a set A is a relation if and only if it is a subset of the Cartesian product of its domain and range. The confusion arises from the use of dom and ran, which are typically associated with relations but can also apply to arbitrary sets. In the example given, the elements of A that are not part of ordered pairs are disregarded when determining dom and ran. This indicates that the definitions of dom and ran can extend beyond traditional relations to include arbitrary sets.
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
I have an exercise in my set theory book that states the following: Show that a set ##A## is a relation iff ##A \subseteq \operatorname{dom} A\times \operatorname{ran} B##.

This is an easy exercise, so I am not asking how to prove it. However, I am confused about one thing.

The forward direction is trivial, by the definition of the relation. However, the other direction confuses me, because it uses the dom and ran operations, which I thought were only defined for relations, when in fact we can't assume that ##A## is a relation. Is this saying that dom and ran are defined with respect to arbitrary sets? For example, if ##A = \{1, (2,3)\}##, then dom A = 2 and ran A = 3, where the 1 is just disregarded?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What definition of "relation" do you have? The thing you are asked to prove to be equivalent is what I am used to seeing as the definition.
I would assume that "dom" and "ran" were just inserted to help you understand what roles A and B have, respectively.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K