Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Binary relation

In mathematics, a binary relation (or simply relation) is a fundamental concept that establishes a correspondence between elements of two sets, capturing the idea of one element being connected to another in a specified way. Formally, given two sets A and B, a binary relation R from A to B is defined as a subset of the Cartesian product A × B, consisting of ordered pairs (a, b) such that aA, bB, and the pair satisfies the relation's condition. When A = B, the relation is said to be a binary relation on the set A. Binary relations can exhibit various structural properties that determine their behavior and utility in mathematical reasoning. Key properties include reflexivity (every element aA satisfies a R a), symmetry (if a R b then b R a), transitivity (if a R b and b R c then a R c), and antisymmetry (if a R b and b R a then a = b). Combinations of these properties classify relations into important types: for example, an is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive, partitioning a set into equivalence classes; a partial order is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive, modeling hierarchical structures like precedence. Binary relations form the basis for many core mathematical constructs and applications across disciplines. Functions, for instance, are special binary relations that are right-unique, meaning each element in the domain relates to exactly one element in the codomain. Classic examples include the "less than" relation (<) on the real numbers, which is irreflexive, asymmetric, and transitive (a strict partial order), and the equality relation (=), which is an equivalence relation. In set theory and logic, binary relations provide a common framework for describing structures like orders and equivalences, while in computer science, they underpin algorithms for graph traversal, database queries, and equivalence partitioning in programming.

Fundamentals

Definition

In set theory, the Cartesian product of two sets A and B, denoted A \times B, is the set of all ordered pairs (a, b) where a \in A and b \in B. A binary relation R from a set A to a set B is a subset of the Cartesian product A \times B. This formulation captures the idea that the relation specifies which elements of A are connected to which elements of B through selected ordered pairs. Equivalently, R can be described as the collection of all ordered pairs (a, b) with a \in A and b \in B such that a is related to b by R. The standard notation R \subseteq A \times B emphasizes this set-theoretic foundation, while R: A \to B is often used to indicate the relation's direction from A to B.

Domain, Codomain, and Field

In the context of a binary relation R \subseteq A \times B, the codomain of R is the set B, which serves as the target set for the elements related by R. The domain of R, denoted \dom(R), is the subset of A consisting of all elements a \in A such that there exists at least one b \in B with (a, b) \in R; formally, \dom(R) = \{ a \in A \mid \exists b \in B \text{ such that } (a, b) \in R \}. This captures the elements from the source set that participate in the relation. The range or image of R, denoted \im(R), is the subset of the codomain B consisting of all elements b \in B that are related to at least one a \in A; formally, \im(R) = \{ b \in B \mid \exists a \in A \text{ such that } (a, b) \in R \}. Unlike the codomain, which is fixed by the ambient , the range identifies the actual elements in B that are "reached" by R, and it is always a subset of B. The field of R, denoted \field(R), is the union of the domain and the range: \field(R) = \dom(R) \cup \im(R). This set encompasses all elements from either A or B that appear in at least one pair of R. For the empty relation \emptyset \subseteq A \times B, both the domain and range are empty sets, so \dom(\emptyset) = \emptyset and \im(\emptyset) = \emptyset, with the field also empty. In contrast, the full relation R = A \times B has domain equal to the entire source set A and range equal to the entire codomain B, so \dom(R) = A and \im(R) = B, making the field A \cup B. The domain and range can be computed using existential projections from the pairs in R. The domain is the first-coordinate projection \pi_1(R) = \{ x \mid \exists y \ (x, y) \in R \}, while the range is the second-coordinate projection \pi_2(R) = \{ y \mid \exists x \ (x, y) \in R \}. These projections provide a set-theoretic mechanism to extract the active elements without enumerating all pairs.

Visual Representations

Binary relations are often visualized using graphical and diagrammatic methods to provide intuitive insights into their structure and facilitate analysis. These representations emphasize the connections between elements without delving into computational operations. A primary visual tool is the arrow diagram, which depicts a binary relation R \subseteq A \times B by arranging elements of the domain A on the left and the codomain B on the right, with directed arrows from a \in A to b \in B if (a, b) \in R. This bipartite directed graph layout highlights the mapping from domain to codomain, making it straightforward to identify the range of related elements. For homogeneous binary relations where A = B, the arrow diagram simplifies to a directed graph, or digraph, with vertices representing the elements of A and directed edges indicating related pairs. In this representation, each vertex corresponds to an element, and an edge from x to y signifies x R y, allowing for a compact view of intra-set connections. Another key representation is the incidence matrix, a rectangular binary matrix where rows index elements of A, columns index elements of B, and the entry m_{ij} = 1 if the corresponding pair is in R, otherwise 0. For instance, consider the "less than" relation R = \{ (1,2), (1,3), (2,3) \} on the set \{1, 2, 3\}; its incidence matrix is:
123
1011
2001
3000
This matrix form, along with arrow diagrams, serves as a precursor to more specialized visualizations like Hasse diagrams for partial orders, such as the less-than relation shown with directed edges from smaller to larger numbers. These visual methods offer advantages in revealing relational patterns, such as cycles (closed loops in digraphs indicating periodic dependencies) or chains (sequences of edges suggesting comparability), through direct inspection rather than algebraic computation. By converting abstract set memberships into tangible diagrams or matrices, they enhance conceptual understanding and aid in detecting structural features like transitivity or asymmetry.

Operations

Union and Intersection

Binary relations, being subsets of a Cartesian product A \times B, inherit the standard set-theoretic operations of union and intersection. For two binary relations R \subseteq A \times B and S \subseteq A \times B, their union is defined as R \cup S = \{ (a, b) \mid (a, b) \in R \lor (a, b) \in S \}, which consists of all ordered pairs related by at least one of the relations. Similarly, the intersection is R \cap S = \{ (a, b) \mid (a, b) \in R \land (a, b) \in S \}, comprising only the ordered pairs common to both relations. These operations treat relations as sets of pairs, preserving the structure of the underlying . The union and intersection operations on binary relations exhibit key algebraic properties analogous to those in set theory. Both are commutative: R \cup S = S \cup R and R \cap S = S \cap R. They are also associative: (R \cup S) \cup T = R \cup (S \cup T) and (R \cap S) \cap T = R \cap (S \cap T). Moreover, they distribute over each other: R \cup (S \cap T) = (R \cup S) \cap (R \cup T) and R \cap (S \cup T) = (R \cap S) \cup (R \cap T). These properties hold for relations sharing the same Cartesian product and form the basis for the Boolean structure in relation algebras. As elements of the power set \mathcal{P}(A \times B), binary relations form a Boolean algebra under union, intersection, and complement, where union and intersection serve as the join and meet operations, respectively. This algebraic framework, developed in the calculus of relations, integrates with relational composition, enabling systematic manipulation of relations. For an illustrative example, consider the set of people and two binary relations: the parent relation P, where (x, y) \in P if x is a parent of y, and the sibling relation S, where (x, y) \in S if x and y share at least one parent. The union P \cup S then relates each person to both their parents and siblings, capturing a broader familial connection.

Composition and Converse

In the theory of binary relations, composition provides a means to chain relations across sets, forming a new relation that connects elements through an intermediate set. Given a binary relation R \subseteq A \times B and another binary relation S \subseteq B \times C, their composition, denoted S \circ R, is the binary relation S \circ R \subseteq A \times C defined by S \circ R = \{ (a, c) \in A \times C \mid \exists b \in B \text{ such that } (a, b) \in R \text{ and } (b, c) \in S \}. The domain of S \circ R is a subset of A, and its codomain is a subset of C. This operation captures the idea of sequential application, where elements in A are related to elements in C via some intermediary in B. Composition is associative: for relations R \subseteq A \times B, S \subseteq B \times C, and T \subseteq C \times D, it holds that (T \circ S) \circ R = T \circ (S \circ R). This property allows for unambiguous chaining of multiple relations without parentheses, mirroring the associativity in function composition. The converse (or inverse) of a binary relation R \subseteq A \times B, denoted R^{-1}, is the relation R^{-1} \subseteq B \times A given by R^{-1} = \{ (b, a) \in B \times A \mid (a, b) \in R \}. This operation reverses the direction of the relation, effectively swapping the roles of the domain and codomain. Every binary relation has a unique converse, and applying the converse twice yields the original relation: (R^{-1})^{-1} = R. The converse interacts naturally with composition; specifically, for relations R and S as above, the converse of their composition satisfies (S \circ R)^{-1} = R^{-1} \circ S^{-1}. This reversal property ensures that the order of relations is inverted when taking converses, preserving the chaining structure in the opposite direction. To illustrate, consider the successor relation S on the natural numbers \mathbb{N}, where S = \{ (n, n+1) \mid n \in \mathbb{N} \}, relating each number to its successor. Its converse is S^{-1} = \{ (n+1, n) \mid n \in \mathbb{N} \}, relating each number to its predecessor. The composition S^{-1} \circ S consists of pairs (n, m) where there exists k such that (n, k) \in S (so k = n+1) and (k, m) \in S^{-1} (so m = k-1 = n), yielding pairs (n, n) for all n \in \mathbb{N}, which is the identity relation on \mathbb{N}. Such examples highlight how composition and converse enable modeling of sequential or hierarchical connections in relational structures.

Complement and Restriction

The complement of a binary relation R \subseteq A \times B is the relation R^c = \{ (a, b) \in A \times B \mid (a, b) \notin R \}, consisting of all ordered pairs in the ambient product set that are not in R. This operation is taken relative to the full A \times B, treating R as a subset thereof. The complement satisfies key properties analogous to those in set theory, including De Morgan's laws: for binary relations R, S \subseteq A \times B, the complement of their union is the intersection of the complements, (R \cup S)^c = R^c \cap S^c, and the complement of their intersection is the union of the complements, (R \cap S)^c = R^c \cup S^c. These laws follow from the set-theoretic nature of relations and hold relative to the same ambient product. Additionally, the complement operation is involutive, meaning (R^c)^c = R. The domain restriction of R \subseteq A \times B to a subset A' \subseteq A is the relation R|_{A'} = \{ (a, b) \in R \mid a \in A' \} = R \cap (A' \times B), retaining only those pairs whose first component lies in A'. Similarly, the codomain restriction to B' \subseteq B is R|_{B'} = \{ (a, b) \in R \mid b \in B' \} = R \cap (A \times B'), retaining pairs whose second component lies in B'. These operations limit the relation to a subproduct while preserving the original pairs within that subproduct. The cylindrical extension serves as the inverse of restriction, embedding a relation defined on a subproduct into a larger ambient product without adding new pairs; for instance, if S \subseteq A' \times B with A' \subseteq A and B \subseteq C, the extension to A \times C is simply S viewed as a subset of A \times C. This preserves the relational structure while expanding the domain and codomain sets. For example, consider the equality relation = on the set of real numbers, where x = y for x, y \in \mathbb{R}; its complement is the "not equals" relation \neq, consisting of all pairs (x, y) where x \neq y.

Algebraic Aspects

Matrix Representation

A binary relation R \subseteq A \times B on finite sets A = \{a_1, \dots, a_n\} and B = \{b_1, \dots, b_m\} can be represented by an n \times m adjacency matrix M_R, where the entry M_R(i,j) = 1 if (a_i, b_j) \in R and $0 otherwise. This zero-one matrix provides a compact algebraic structure for encoding the relation, facilitating computational analysis. Matrix representations enable direct translation of relational operations into matrix algebra over the Boolean semiring, where addition is logical OR (\lor) and multiplication is logical AND (\land). The union R \cup S corresponds to the entry-wise Boolean OR of M_R and M_S, i.e., M_{R \cup S} = M_R \lor M_S. Similarly, the intersection R \cap S is given by the entry-wise Boolean AND, M_{R \cap S} = M_R \land M_S. For composition, if S \subseteq B \times C, then M_{S \circ R} = M_S \cdot M_R, where the product uses Boolean multiplication: the (i,k)-entry is \bigvee_{j=1}^m (M_R(i,j) \land M_S(j,k)). The converse relation R^{-1} is represented by the transpose matrix M_{R^{-1}} = M_R^T. For a homogeneous relation R \subseteq A \times A, the matrix powers capture iterated compositions: M_{R^k} = M_R^k, where the k-th power is computed via repeated Boolean matrix multiplication, corresponding to paths of length k in the associated directed graph. This is particularly useful for analyzing reachability, as the transitive closure R^+ = \bigcup_{k=1}^n R^k has matrix M_{R^+} = \bigvee_{k=1}^n M_R^k. Matrix representations offer computational advantages, notably in algorithms for deriving transitive closures efficiently. Warshall's algorithm computes the transitive closure of an n \times n relation matrix in O(n^3) time by iteratively updating entries: for each intermediate vertex k = 1 to n, set M(i,j) \leftarrow M(i,j) \lor (M(i,k) \land M(k,j)) for all i,j. This dynamic programming approach leverages the matrix structure to identify all pairs connected by paths, enabling applications in graph analysis and relational databases.

Relation Algebras

Relation algebras provide an abstract algebraic framework for modeling , extending to capture relational operations and their properties. Formally, a relation algebra is a structure consisting of a equipped with additional operations: relative composition (denoted ∘), converse (denoted ^−1), and a distinguished constant element representing the (Id). The include meet (∧), join (∨), complement (∼), and constants for the zero (empty) relation (0) and the universal relation (1). These structures allow for the algebraic manipulation of relations in a way that abstracts from specific sets, enabling proofs of general properties that hold for all . The axioms defining relation algebras were systematized by Alfred Tarski, comprising the standard axioms of Boolean algebras (typically around 10 equations) augmented by additional relational axioms (about 10–12, depending on the formulation), totaling over 20 when fully enumerated. Key among the relational axioms are those governing composition and converse, such as the associativity of composition (R ∘ (S ∘ T) = (R ∘ S) ∘ T), the interaction with Boolean operations (e.g., (R ∨ S) ∘ T = (R ∘ T) ∨ (S ∘ T)), and the crucial converse property (R ∘ S)^−1 = S^−1 ∘ R^−1, which ensures that the converse reverses the order of composition. Additional axioms define the identity relation as its own converse (Id^−1 = Id) and specify its role in composition (R ∘ Id = Id ∘ R = R). These axioms form an equational theory, making relation algebras a variety in the sense of universal algebra, and they ensure that the algebra behaves consistently with the semantics of concrete binary relations. A subclass of relation algebras, known as representable relation algebras, consists of those isomorphic to subalgebras of the full relation algebra on some set U—that is, algebras of binary relations over U closed under the standard set-theoretic operations of union, intersection, complement, composition, and converse. Not all relation algebras satisfying Tarski's axioms are representable; the representability problem, which asks whether an abstract relation algebra can be embedded into a concrete one, remains undecidable in general. However, finite representable relation algebras are well-understood and play a key role in computational applications. The development of relation algebras traces back to the 1940s, when Alfred Tarski and his collaborators, including and , formalized them as part of efforts to axiomatize the calculus of relations, building on 19th-century foundations by , , and . Tarski's seminal 1941 paper introduced the core axiomatic system, aiming to provide a rigorous algebraic foundation for relational reasoning in logic and set theory. Relation algebras find applications in decision procedures for verifying properties of binary relations, such as transitivity or reflexivity, through algebraic manipulation and equational reasoning, which can be mechanized using tools like RelView for computing normal forms or checking satisfiability. They also support qualitative reasoning in temporal and spatial domains by modeling interval relations (e.g., Allen's algebra) or spatial configurations, enabling automated inference in artificial intelligence and database query optimization.

Calculus of Relations

The calculus of relations provides a set of equational laws and deductive rules for manipulating binary relations through operations such as union, intersection, composition, and converse, enabling rigorous proofs of relational properties without reference to underlying sets. This framework emerged in the late 19th century as part of , allowing computations analogous to but extended to relative terms. Historically, the foundations were laid by Charles Sanders Peirce in his 1870 paper "Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives," where he introduced composition and converse as core operations for binary relations, distinguishing them from class-based logic. Ernst Schröder significantly expanded this in the 1890s, particularly in Volume III of his Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik (1895), developing a comprehensive deductive system known as the . Schröder's work formalized rules for equational reasoning, including substitution of equals, detachment (modus ponens for equations), and specific axioms governing relational operations like composition (denoted ∘) and converse (denoted ⁻¹). The Schröder calculus serves as a deductive system for deriving equations between relational terms, treating binary relations as abstract objects manipulated via Boolean combinations and relative products. Key rules include the associative law for composition (R ∘ (S ∘ T) = (R ∘ S) ∘ T) and the converse properties ( (R ∘ S)^−¹ = S^−¹ ∘ R^−¹ ; R^{−¹^{−¹}} = R ). Modular laws form a cornerstone, such as the right modular law: (R ∩ S) ∘ T ⊆ (R ∘ T) ∩ (S ∘ T), and its dual for left composition, which facilitate distribution of intersection over composition under certain conditions. A pivotal identity is Dedekind's rule, named after 's contributions to related algebraic structures: R ∘ (R^{−¹} ∘ S) ∩ S = R ∘ (R^{−¹} ∘ S), which captures a form of absorption and modularity in relational composition. These laws, derivable within the system, enable simplification of complex relational expressions. The Peirce-Schröder calculus extends the original framework by incorporating additional unary operations, such as the transitive closure (R⁺, the smallest transitive relation containing R) and its reflexive variant (R^*, including the identity relation), along with De Morgan duals like the "inaccessible" and "unapproachable" relations. Peirce anticipated these in his 1870 and 1880 works, while Schröder systematized them in the 1890s, providing equational characterizations like R⁺ = ⋃_{n=1}^∞ R^n, where R^n denotes iterated composition. These extensions support iterative computations and closures essential for dynamic logics. Applications of the calculus include proving relational properties from axioms, such as establishing transitivity of the transitive closure: if R is a binary relation, then R⁺ ∘ R⁺ = R⁺, derived using modular laws and to handle intersections in iterative definitions. This calculational approach underpins , which axiomatize the calculus abstractly for broader algebraic study.

Properties and Classifications

Basic Properties

A binary relation R on a set A (where R \subseteq A \times A) exhibits several fundamental properties that characterize its structure and behavior. These properties are defined in terms of the elements of A and the pairs in R. Reflexivity requires that every element relates to itself: for all a \in A, (a, a) \in R. This property holds when the relation includes all diagonal pairs in the Cartesian product A \times A. For instance, the equality relation on A, defined as \{(a, a) \mid a \in A\}, is reflexive because each element equals itself. Symmetry means that the relation is bidirectional: for all a, b \in A, if (a, b) \in R, then (b, a) \in R. This ensures that whenever one element relates to another, the reverse also holds. The equality relation is symmetric, as a = b implies b = a. Transitivity captures chaining: for all a, b, c \in A, if (a, b) \in R and (b, c) \in R, then (a, c) \in R. This property allows relations to extend across multiple steps. The equality relation is transitive, since if a = b and b = c, then a = c. Antisymmetry prevents mutual relations except for equality: for all a, b \in A, if (a, b) \in R and (b, a) \in R, then a = b. This distinguishes relations that impose a direction without cycles between distinct elements. The equality relation is antisymmetric, as mutual equality forces identity. Another example is the "divides" relation on the positive integers, where a relates to b if a divides b; it is reflexive (every integer divides itself), transitive (if a divides b and b divides c, then a divides c), and antisymmetric (if a divides b and b divides a, then a = b). Combinations of these properties yield important subclasses. A preorder is a relation that is both reflexive and transitive, providing a weak ordering without requiring symmetry or antisymmetry. The "divides" relation exemplifies a preorder on the positive integers.

Equivalence and Order Relations

An equivalence relation on a set X is a binary relation \sim that is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. Reflexivity means that for every x \in X, x \sim x; symmetry ensures that if x \sim y, then y \sim x; and transitivity guarantees that if x \sim y and y \sim z, then x \sim z. These properties imply that an equivalence relation partitions X into disjoint equivalence classes, where each class consists of all elements related to a fixed element, and every element belongs to exactly one such class. Classic examples include congruence modulo n on the integers \mathbb{Z}, defined by a \equiv b \pmod{n} if n divides a - b, which partitions \mathbb{Z} into n classes represented by residues $0, 1, \dots, n-1. Another is the kernel of a function f: X \to Y, where x \sim y if f(x) = f(y), grouping elements that map to the same output and thus forming equivalence classes as the preimages of points in the codomain. A partial order on a set X is a binary relation \leq that is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive. Antisymmetry means that if x \leq y and y \leq x, then x = y. A set equipped with a partial order is called a partially ordered set, or poset. In a poset, not all pairs of elements need to be comparable, allowing for complex hierarchical structures. A total order is a partial order where every pair of distinct elements is comparable, meaning for any x, y \in X, either x \leq y or y \leq x. The standard ordering on the real numbers \mathbb{R} exemplifies a total order. Strict orders, such as strict partial orders, are irreflexive and transitive relations derived from partial orders by excluding equality; for instance, the strict less-than relation < on \mathbb{R} is the strict version of \leq. Partial orders are often visualized using Hasse diagrams, which represent the poset by drawing elements as points and connecting them with lines only for covering relations—where x covers y if x > y and no z satisfies y < z < x—omitting reflexive loops and transitive edges for clarity. This graphical tool highlights the structure of the poset without redundant information.

Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Relations

A binary relation R is defined as a subset of the Cartesian product A \times B, where A and B are sets. When A \neq B, the relation is termed heterogeneous, allowing connections between elements of distinct sets. In contrast, a homogeneous relation occurs when A = B, restricting the relation to a single set and enabling interpretations such as directed graphs, where vertices represent elements of A and arcs represent pairs in R. Homogeneous relations are fundamental in modeling intra-set connections, such as the "less than" relation on the real numbers \mathbb{R}, where R = \{ (x, y) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \mid x < y \}. This setup supports directed graph representations, with reflexivity defined as \forall a \in A, (a, a) \in R, a property meaningful only for homogeneous relations since it requires elements to pair with themselves within the same set. Other properties like symmetry ((a, b) \in R implies (b, a) \in R) and transitivity ((a, b) \in R and (b, c) \in R imply (a, c) \in R) also presuppose A = B, as they involve swapping or chaining elements across identical domains and codomains. For heterogeneous relations, these properties are not standardly applicable without additional structure, such as embeddings into a common set. Heterogeneous relations generalize binary connections across different sets, exemplified by the successor function on natural numbers viewed as a relation from \mathbb{N} to \mathbb{N} + 1 (if considering extended codomain), or more distinctly, "is a root of" where R \subseteq \mathbb{R} \times (\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}) pairs real numbers with polynomial functions they satisfy. Functions themselves are special heterogeneous relations: a function f: A \to B corresponds to a left-total, right-unique relation R = \{ (a, b) \in A \times B \mid b = f(a) \}, with A \neq B possible, such as mapping integers to their string representations. In graph theory, heterogeneous relations model , with edges linking vertices from two disjoint sets. In database applications, heterogeneous relations are crucial for modeling inter-table links via foreign keys, where a foreign key in one relation references the primary key of another, establishing a binary connection between distinct entity sets, as formalized in the . For instance, a "capital of" relation might link a countries table to a cities table, enforcing referential integrity across heterogeneous schemas. This approach supports data integration in federated systems, where implied binary relationships merge entities from disparate sources.

Special Relations

Difunctional and Ferrers Relations

A binary relation R \subseteq A \times B is difunctional if it satisfies the inclusion R \circ R^{-1} \circ R \subseteq R, where \circ denotes relational composition and R^{-1} the converse relation. This defining property, known as the multiplication property, ensures that the relation behaves multiplicatively under composition with its converse. The concept was introduced by in his foundational work on . Difunctional relations admit several equivalent characterizations that highlight their structural simplicity. One such characterization is that R can be expressed as the composition R = f^{-1} \circ g, where f: A \to C and g: B \to C are partial functions for some set C, satisfying f \circ f^{-1} = f and g \circ g^{-1} = g. Alternatively, R is the union of a family of pairwise disjoint rectangles, where each rectangle is a full bipartite relation C_i \times D_i with the C_i \subseteq A and D_i \subseteq B forming disjoint partitions. This block structure corresponds to partial functions between quotient sets induced by equivalence relations on A and B, or more generally to block designs where blocks are fully matched. In particular, difunctional relations include partial functions as a special case, where each block is a singleton, implying that they are thin in the sense that each element in the domain relates to elements within at most one block, though not necessarily to a single codomain element. A representative example of a difunctional relation is a matching in a with parts A and B, which consists of disjoint 1×1 rectangles and thus satisfies the defining inclusion. More broadly, any partial permutation between subsets of A and B (arising from disjoint cycles or fixed points in permutation representations) is difunctional, linking the concept to applications in and . A Ferrers relation is a binary relation F \subseteq X \times Y satisfying the condition that whenever (g, m) \in F and (h, n) \in F but (g, n) \notin F, then (h, m) \in F. This property, analogous to the staircase shape of Ferrers diagrams in partition theory, ensures a form of "consecutive ones" structure in the relation's matrix representation. The notion was originated by Jacques Riguet as a dual to certain closure properties in binary relations. For homogeneous Ferrers relations on a single set Z (i.e., F \subseteq Z \times Z), assuming a fixed linear order on Z, the relation corresponds to a matrix where the positions of the elements satisfy the Ferrers property: if (i, j) \in F with i < k and j > l, then (k, l) \in F. Such relations are closely tied to semiorders and interval orders in order theory, where the complement of a Ferrers relation is again Ferrers, providing a symmetric structure for analyzing incomparabilities. In this homogeneous case, Ferrers relations generalize the complement of a strict linear order by allowing "staircase" incomparabilities rather than total comparability, facilitating decompositions in poset dimension theory. Difunctional and Ferrers relations are connected through duality in relation algebras: the converse of a difunctional relation is Ferrers, and vice versa, reflecting their roles in multiplicative and additive properties of relations. This interplay underscores their importance in classifying binary relations beyond basic reflexive, symmetric, or transitive types.

Contact and Preorder Relations

A contact relation is a binary relation used in mereotopology to model the notion of two spatial regions touching or being connected without one being a part of the other, characterized by symmetry and non-transitivity. In the Region Connection Calculus (RCC), the external contact relation EC(x, y) holds when regions x and y share at least one point on their boundaries but their interiors do not overlap, making it symmetric—EC(x, y) iff EC(y, x)—and non-transitive, as a chain of touching regions may not result in contact between the endpoints. This relation extends mereological concepts by incorporating topological connection, where contact often aligns with overlap in mereology but emphasizes boundary sharing in geometric models. An example of a relation is the "shares a " relation among , where two countries are related if they have a common but neither encompasses the other; this is symmetric, as bordering is mutual, and non-transitive, since Country A bordering Country B and Country B bordering Country C does not imply Country A borders Country C. In modern mereotopology, such relations support qualitative spatial reasoning in geographic information systems, enabling queries about adjacency without precise measurements. In contrast, a R \backslash R arises from a binary relation R as its left , defined in relational as R \backslash R = \overline{R^T \cdot \overline{R}}, where R^T is the of R and the overline denotes complement; this yields a reflexive and , hence a preorder. Specifically, reflexivity follows from R^T \cdot \overline{R} \subseteq \overline{I}, implying the identity relation I is contained in R \backslash R, and transitivity is established via Schröder's rule and the property R \cdot (R \backslash R) \subseteq R. This preorder captures a "generated ordering" from R, often used in heterogeneous relations to induce partial orders on sets with differing structures. Unlike strict preorders, which are irreflexive and transitive (e.g., the strict order < on real , the preorder R \backslash R includes reflexivity, allowing self-relations and modeling inclusive orderings such as "less than or equal to." In mereotopological applications, such preorders can represent cumulative connections, like the of contact relations to model in spatial networks.

Other Particular Relations

The of a binary relation R on sets X and Y is the largest difunctional subrelation embedded within R, consisting of those pairs that belong to exactly one maximal in the relation's graphical representation. Formally, it is computed as \operatorname{fringe}(R) = R \cap (R ; R^T ; R), where ; denotes relational composition and R^T is the () of R. This , introduced by Riguet in his foundational work on difunctional relations, identifies "isolated points" or boundary elements that cannot be extended into larger rectangular blocks without leaving R. The fringe is itself difunctional and idempotent, meaning \operatorname{fringe}(\operatorname{fringe}(R)) = \operatorname{fringe}(R), and it remains invariant under reduction to the block-transitive kernel of R. In partially ordered sets (posets), where R represents a strict order <, the is contained within the Hasse relation—the relations forming the poset's —capturing extremal pairs such as those connecting minimal to immediate successor elements without intermediates. For instance, in a dense linear order like the reals under <, the is empty due to the absence of such isolated . This property makes the useful in for extracting minimal conceptual decompositions and invariant structures from relational data. Mathematical heaps provide another specialized perspective on relations, bridging algebraic structures and combinatorial models. An algebraic heap is a set H equipped with a [x, y, z] satisfying [x, y, [u, v, w]] = [[x, y, u], v, w] = [x, [y, u, v], w] and [x, y, z] = [u, y, v] implying x = u and z = v, generalizing groups by omitting a specified while allowing recovery of one. Such heaps induce binary relations via projections, such as the derived from fixing an element, but fundamentally rely on ternary relations for their non-associative structure. In combinatorial contexts, a is a poset (P, \leq) labeled by elements from a set B under a symmetric, reflexive relation R \subseteq B \times B, where R enforces ordering constraints: if the labels a = \ell(x) and b = \ell(y) satisfy a R b, then x \leq y or y \leq x in the poset, with \leq as the incorporating R-based interchanges. This R models "blocking" between labels, as in heaps of monomers and dimers where R distinguishes compatible placements, enabling enumeration of polyominoes via the –Foata monoid. Heaps thus project interactions onto constraints for partial orders, with applications in rewriting systems and trace s. Computationally, binary heaps extend this to data structures, realized as complete binary trees where the parent-child relation R satisfies the heap property: for a min-heap, each is less than or equal to its children, forming a on array indices that ensures efficient operations like extract-min in O(\log n) time. This relational view underpins algorithms for and processing, with the tree's (leaf level) often holding extremal elements analogous to relational boundaries.

Advanced Topics

Sets Versus Classes

In ZFC , a binary relation on sets A and B is defined as a subset of the A \times B, which itself is a set constructed via the axioms of pairing, union, and ; thus, all such relations are sets and inherit the well-foundedness of the cumulative hierarchy V. This framework ensures that relations remain within the bounds of sets, avoiding the formation of overly large collections that could lead to inconsistencies. However, ZFC's restriction to sets imposes limitations: for instance, there is no containing all sets, so no binary relation can encompass the entire universe V as a set, precluding direct set-theoretic operations on "global" relations like membership across all sets. To address these limitations and formalize "large" collections without , class theories such as –Bernays–Gödel (NBG) and Morse-Kelley () introduce proper classes alongside sets. In NBG, a binary relation is a comprising ordered pairs, where classes are defined by formulas via the of (restricted to set quantifiers), allowing relations to be proper classes if they are not elements of any set; the membership relation \in, for example, forms such a proper class, relating every set to its elements without being a set itself. MK extends this by permitting class quantifiers in comprehension, enabling more expressive definitions of class relations while remaining consistent with ZFC for set-level assertions. These theories distinguish the V of all sets (a proper class) from any set, ensuring that relations on V can be handled as classes without violating or . Historically, this distinction arose in response to , which demonstrated that unrestricted —allowing any definable collection to be a set—leads to contradictions, such as the paradoxical set R = \{x \mid x \notin x\}; in class theories, the corresponding collection is a proper , not a set, thereby resolving the issue without abandoning entirely. Bernays' axiomatization built on von Neumann's class-based approach to avoid such paradoxes, while Gödel streamlined it for consistency proofs relative to ZFC. In ZFC, these class-theoretic insights manifest indirectly through definable classes (e.g., via replacement and separation), but the lack of formal classes limits proofs about the as a whole, such as global well-orderings or reflections, which NBG and handle more robustly.

Induced Concept Lattice

In (FCA), a binary relation serves as the foundational structure for modeling associations between a set of objects and a set of attributes, forming what is known as a formal context. Specifically, a formal context is defined as a triple (G, M, I), where G is the set of objects, M is the set of attributes, and I \subseteq G \times M is the binary incidence relation specifying which objects possess which attributes. This setup captures the inherent relational structure of data, enabling the derivation of hierarchical knowledge representations from binary relations. The concept lattice induced by this binary relation arises through the derivation operators defined by the relation I. For a subset A \subseteq G of objects, the intent A' = \{ m \in M \mid \forall g \in A: (g, m) \in I \} consists of all attributes common to those objects; dually, for B \subseteq M, the extent B' = \{ g \in G \mid \forall m \in B: (g, m) \in I \} includes all objects sharing those attributes. These operators form a Galois connection between the power sets \mathcal{P}(G) and \mathcal{P}(M), which induces closure operators A \mapsto A'' on \mathcal{P}(G) and B \mapsto B'' on \mathcal{P}(M). A formal concept is then a pair (A, B) where A = B' and B = A', with A as the extent and B as the intent. The collection of all such formal concepts, partially ordered by (A_1, B_1) \leq (A_2, B_2) if and only if A_1 \subseteq A_2 (equivalently, B_2 \subseteq B_1), constitutes the concept lattice \mathfrak{B}(G, M, I), a complete lattice structure that hierarchically organizes the concepts by inclusion. This lattice directly emerges from the binary relation, as the closure operators identify the maximal consistent groupings of objects and attributes. Key properties of the induced concept lattice depend on characteristics of the underlying binary relation. The lattice is always complete, with meets and joins computed via intersections of extents or unions of intents, respectively. It is distributive precisely when the binary relation defines a context, where attribute implications can be expressed as Horn clauses (conjunctions implying a single positive literal), ensuring the lattice satisfies the distributive laws x \wedge (y \vee z) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z) and its dual. This distributivity facilitates efficient computation and interpretation in applications requiring modular knowledge structures. The induced concept lattice has significant applications in knowledge representation, where it provides a lattice-theoretic framework for organizing conceptual hierarchies derived from binary relations, enabling transparent reasoning about object-attribute dependencies. In the 2020s, FCA and its concept lattices have gained traction in AI-driven , particularly for tasks such as pattern discovery, data cleaning, and in large-scale datasets like data lakes, where binary relations model feature-object interactions to uncover hidden structures without assuming completeness in the data. For instance, recent work leverages concept lattices to systematically organize and analyze heterogeneous data sources, improving scalability in pipelines.

Fringe and Mathematical Heaps

In the context of relations, the of a R \subseteq X \times Y is a difunctional subrelation that captures the boundary or edge elements of R, specifically those pairs belonging to exactly one maximal in the matrix representation of R. Introduced by Riguet, this construct serves as an approximation tool in , where it embeds the core regular structure of R while excluding overlapping or interior points. The is computed via as \mathrm{fringe}(R) = R \cap \overline{R} \circ R^\top \circ \overline{R}, where \circ denotes composition, ^\top the (transpose), and \overline{R} the complement of R; this yields a subrelation that is always difunctional, satisfying F = F \circ F^\top \circ F, and equals R precisely when R itself is difunctional. In approximation theory, the facilitates minimal coverage of R by rectangles, aiding in tasks like from data by isolating invariant boundary structures without full enumeration of all bicliques. Mathematical heaps extend binary relations into algebraic structures that generalize groups by forgoing a fixed identity element, instead relying on relational definitions for operations. A heap is formalized as a triple (P, \leq, \ell), where (P, \leq) is a poset induced by a reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive binary relation on the set P of positions, and \ell: P \to B is a labeling function to a set B of pieces equipped with a symmetric and reflexive binary relation R \subseteq B \times B that enforces compatibility constraints (e.g., pieces related by R cannot cross in rearrangements). The heap operation, derived relationally through transitive closure under \leq and R-constrained label swaps, produces a ternary structure [x, y, z] that is para-associative: [w, [x, y, z], u] = [[w, x, y], z, u], mirroring group multiplication without identity. Key properties of heaps include associativity in their of compositions, where the empty heap \emptyset acts as a neutral under relational , and the ability to derive inverses relationally by fixing an arbitrary e \in H to define a x \cdot y = [x, e, y], transforming the heap into a group isomorphic to its . Post-2000 developments connect heaps to via representations in Coxeter groups and affine Kac-Moody algebras, where the relational labeling models reduced expressions and braid relations in Weyl groups. For instance, heaps relationalize operations by treating priorities as labels under an ordering \leq, enabling associative insertions and extractions through constrained poset manipulations that simulate heap-order maintenance without explicit structures.

References

  1. [1]
    Definition of Binary Relation
    Definition (binary relation): A binary relation from a set A to a set B is a set of ordered pairs <a, b> where a is an element of A and b is an element of B.
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Introduction to Relations Binary relation - University at Buffalo
    Definition: Let A and B be two sets. A binary relation from A to B is a subset of A × B. In other words, a binary relation from A to B is a set of pair (a,b) ...
  3. [3]
    Binary Relations
    Definition. A binary relation from a set X to a set Y is a subset of the product . X is called the domain of the relation and Y is called the codomain.
  4. [4]
    Properties of Binary Relation
    A relation R on a set A is called reflexive if and only if < a, a > R for every element a of A. Example 1: The relation on the set of integers {1, 2, 3} is {<1 ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Binary Relations
    A binary relation R over a set A is called antisymmetric iff. For any x ∈ A and y ∈ A,. If xRy and x ≠ y, then yRx. Equivalently: For any x ∈ A and y ∈ A,.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] 1 Binary relations
    Definition 1.11. A binary relation R on X is an equivalence relation if R is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. The equivalence class of x ∈ X is ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Binary Relations: Chapter 4.3 – 4.5 - MIT OpenCourseWare
    4.4 Binary Relations. Binary relations define relations between two objects. For example, “less-than” on.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Functions, Sets, and Relations
    A function f : A → B is a binary relation over A and B that is right-unique. (For this reason, a binary relation that is right-unique is often called functional) ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Binary Relations
    Oct 10, 2016 · Binary relations give us a common language to describe common structures. Page 41. Equivalence Relations. ○ Most modern programming languages ...
  10. [10]
    Relations and Functions
    Because a (binary) relation is a collection of ordered pairs from two sets, a relation is actually just a set itself, but that set carries particular ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] cartesian-products.pdf
    Definition. Let S and T be sets. The Cartesian product of S and T is the set S × T consisting of all ordered pairs (s, t), where s ∈ S and t ∈ T. Ordered pairs ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Binary Relations
    Mar 23, 2020 · Binary Relations. Definition. A binary relation from a set X to a set Y is a subset of the product X × Y . X is called the domain of the ...
  13. [13]
    Relations
    Binary relations are often written in infix notation: instead of writing ... Just like functions, relations can be composed: given R:A→B and S:B→C we ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Set Theory and Algebra in Computer Science A Gentle Introduction ...
    Aug 29, 2024 · that “R is a relation from A to B,” or “R is a relation whose domain1 is A and whose codomain2 (or range) is B.” Sometimes, instead of ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Chapter 2 Relations, Functions, Partial Functions
    We write f : A → B to indicate that A is the input domain of f and that B is the codomain of f and we let dom(f) = dom(G) and range(f) = range(G). For every a ...Missing: field | Show results with:field
  16. [16]
    [PDF] equivalence relations - Cornell Mathematics
    In the theory of relations these sets are known as the domain and the range of R (abbreviated dom R and ran R); we recall that they are defined by and dom R.
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Notes on Discrete Mathematics - Miguel A. Lerma's
    The representation of a binary relation defined on a given set. The relation of a given element x to another element y is rep- resented with an arrow ...Missing: visual | Show results with:visual
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Graphs and Relations
    Jan 22, 2019 · A binary relation over A is a subset of A2. Page 49. Binary Relations and Graphs. ○ Each (directed) graph defines a binary relation: ○ aRb ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] CSE 311 Lecture 22: Relations and Directed Graphs - Washington
    A binary relation is a set of tuples. If is a relation from a set to itself ... Let be a directed graph. A path in is a sequence of vertices where for.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] 9.3 Representing Relations
    Let R be a binary relation on a set and let M be its zero-one matrix. R is ... A directed graph, or digraph, consists of a set V of vertices (or nodes) ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  21. [21]
    None
    ### Summary of Union, Intersection, and Relations from Set Theory Basics.pdf
  22. [22]
    [PDF] On the Calculus of Relations
    Thus it turns out that the calculus of relations includes the elementary theory of groups and is, so to speak, a union of Boolean algebra and group theory. This ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Week 4-5: Binary Relations - HKUST Math Department
    The brother or sister relation is the union of the brother relation and the sister relation, i.e.,. Rb ∪ Rs. The complementary relation of the brother or ...
  24. [24]
    operations on relations - PlanetMath.org
    Mar 22, 2013 · Suppose ρ,σ,τ ρ , σ , τ are binary relations of A×B,B×C,C×D A × B , B × C , C × D respectively. 1. Associativity of relational compositions : ( ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] 1.3 Binary relations
    Objects of our consideration are subsets of a given set U; a subset X is related to a subset Y if X is a subset of Y . 4. To be greater or equal. Objects of our ...
  26. [26]
    Relations - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Feb 9, 2016 · ... converse relation. For any given binary relation \(R\), the converse of \(R\) may be defined as the relation \(R^*\) that \(x\) bears to \(y ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Bare minimum: set theory - Assumptions of Physics
    • Converse of composition: (R ○ S). −1. = S. −1. ○ R. −1. • Composition of functional/injective/serial/surjective relations is functional/injective/serial ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Chapter 6 Logic and Action
    The following law describes the interplay between composition and converse: Converse of composition (R1 ◦ R2)ˇ = R2ˇ◦ R1ˇ. Exercise 6.8 Check from the ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Let R:A,B be any binary relation. - Duke Computer Science
    The notation a R b or aRb means that (a,b) R. If aRb we may say “a is related to b (by relation R)”,
  30. [30]
    Binary Relation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    A binary relation is defined as a relation that involves two elements ... The maximum, if it exists, is maximal, but the converse is false; similarly for the ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Origins of the Calculus of Binary Relations - Stanford University
    The calculus of binary relations was introduced by. De Morgan in 1860, and was subsequently greatly de- veloped by Peirce and Schröder. Half a century later.
  32. [32]
    Binary Relation - Steven Gong
    Aug 7, 2023 · Domain Restriction retains only the pairs whose first elements are part of a set S◁R={(a,b)•a:A,b:B∣(a,b)∈R∧a∈S} Domain Subtraction retains the ...
  33. [33]
    Z notation: Structure - University of Washington
    Domain restriction selects pairs based on their first component. ... Functions are binary relations where each element in the domain appears just once.
  34. [34]
    Binary Relation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    A binary relation is a relationship between two elements from a set, indicating a specific connection or property between them.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Bernard De Baets Compositions of ternary relations - Kybernetika
    The following proposition shows the interaction of the cylindrical extensions of a binary relation with inclusion and set-theoretical operations. Proposition ...
  36. [36]
    6.4: Matrices of Relations - Mathematics LibreTexts
    Aug 17, 2021 · We have discussed two of the many possible ways of representing a relation, namely as a digraph or as a set of ordered pairs. In this section we ...
  37. [37]
    6.5: Closure Operations on Relations - Mathematics LibreTexts
    Aug 16, 2021 · 2 : Warshall's Algorithm. Let R be an n × n relation matrix and let R + be its transitive closure matrix, which is to be computed as matrix ...
  38. [38]
    A Theorem on Boolean Matrices | Journal of the ACM
    A new method of checking the consistency of precedence matrices. J. ACM 6, (1959) 164. Crossref Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    On Tarski's axiomatic foundations of the calculus of relations - arXiv
    Apr 15, 2016 · It is shown that Tarski's set of ten axioms for the calculus of relations is independent in the sense that no axiom can be derived from the remaining axioms.
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Representability and formalization of relation algebras - nmsu math
    A relation algebra is representable if it is isomorphic to an algebra of binary relations. Roger Lyndon [1956] found axioms that hold in all algebras of.
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Algebras of relations: some results and methods
    Tarski's original axioms were equations. RA is a variety (equational class), and is 'canonical'.
  42. [42]
    Relation Algebras and their Application in Temporal and Spatial ...
    Qualitative temporal and spatial reasoning is in many cases based on binary relations such as before, after, starts, contains, contact, part of, and others.
  43. [43]
    [PDF] A tutorial on relation algebras and their application in spatial ...
    Aug 19, 1999 · As a gentle introduction to relation algebras occurring in reasoning about time and space, we will recall Allen's interval algebra and the ...
  44. [44]
    The origin of relation algebras in the development and ...
    The origin of relation algebras in the development and axiomatization of the calculus of relations ... Article PDF. Download to read the full article text ...
  45. [45]
    The Algebra of Logic Tradition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Mar 2, 2009 · However, in 1941, Tarski treated relation algebras as an equationally defined class. ... axioms for relation algebras isomorphic to an algebra ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Relation Algebra - Archive of Formal Proofs
    The modular laws are used to prove the Dedekind rule. lemma dedekind: x ; y · z ≤ (x · z ; y^);(y · x^ ; z).
  47. [47]
    [PDF] The Quotient in Preorder Theories - UC Berkeley EECS - University ...
    • Consider a set P and a binary relation ≤ on P. Then ≤ is a preorder if it is reflexive and transitive; i.e., for all a,b and c in P, we have a ≤ a ...
  48. [48]
    7.3: Equivalence Relations - Mathematics LibreTexts
    Jul 7, 2021 · A relation on a set A is an equivalence relation if it is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. We often use the tilde notation a∼b to ...
  49. [49]
    7.2: Equivalence Relations - Mathematics LibreTexts
    Sep 29, 2021 · An equivalence relation on a set is a relation with a certain combination of properties that allow us to sort the elements of the set into certain classes.
  50. [50]
    6.3: Equivalence Relations and Partitions - Mathematics LibreTexts
    May 5, 2020 · For an equivalence relation, due to transitivity and symmetry, all the elements related to a fixed element must be related to each other. Thus, ...
  51. [51]
    7.3: Equivalence Classes - Mathematics LibreTexts
    Sep 29, 2021 · An equivalence relation on a set is a relation with a certain combination of properties (reflexive, symmetric, and transitive) that allow us ...
  52. [52]
    7.1: Definition and Notation - Mathematics LibreTexts
    Aug 16, 2021 · ... if and only if f ⁡ ( x ) = f ⁡ ( y ) . The relation K is called the kernel of f . Prove that K is an equivalence relation. For the specific ...
  53. [53]
    Partial Order -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    For a partial order, the size of the longest chain (antichain) is called the partial order length (partial order width). A partially ordered set is also called ...
  54. [54]
    Partially Ordered Set -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    A partially ordered set (or poset) is a set taken together with a partial order on it. Formally, a partially ordered set is defined as an ordered pair.
  55. [55]
    Totally Ordered Set -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    A totally ordered set is a set with a relation that satisfies partial order conditions plus comparability, where either a<=b or b<=a holds.
  56. [56]
    Strict Order -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    A relation < is a strict order on a set S if it is. 1. Irreflexive: a<a does not hold for any a in S . 2. Asymmetric: if a<b , then b<a does not hold.
  57. [57]
    Hasse Diagram -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    A Hasse diagram is a graphical rendering of a partially ordered set, where points are drawn for each element, and lines connect if x covers y or y covers x.
  58. [58]
    None
    ### Summary of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Binary Relations from the Document
  59. [59]
    [PDF] A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks
    of these three domains taken separately is a foreign key. In previous work ... IO A binary relation is complex if neither it nor its converse is a function.
  60. [60]
    HeTeROGeNeOUS DATABASeS INTeGRATION
    Merge entities by implied binary relationship. X provides a view to A and B. There is a mapping between every unique instance of entity A and B and every ...
  61. [61]
  62. [62]
    On difunctions - ScienceDirect.com
    The notion of a difunctional relation is now generally attributed to Riguet [16]; Jaoua et al. [13] use the name “regular relation” but later publications [14] ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Formal Concept Analysis
    there is no room for a comprehensive introduction to order theory. For ... Ferrers relation. Hence the Ferrers dimension of (G. M, 1) is also equal to ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] Ordered sets with interval representation and (m, n)-Ferrers relation
    We introduce the notion of “(m, n)-Ferrers relation” in order to provide a relational characterization for these two structures. 2 Ordered sets with interval ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] A Spatial Logic based on Regions and Connection - DPI/INPE
    In terms of points inci- dent in regions, C(x; y) holds when regions x and y share a common point.
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Layered Mereotopology - IJCAI
    The purpose of this paper is to develop a mereotopology for domains that include coin- cident entities, such as material objects, holes, geopolitical entities ...
  67. [67]
  68. [68]
    [PDF] A necessary relation algebra for mereotopology - titurel.org
    We have shown that each relation algebra generated by the contact relation of an RCC model contains an integral algebra A with 25 atoms as a subalgebra.
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Rectangles, Fringes, and Inverses - titurel.org
    For every relation R, the fringe does not change when reduc- ing R to its block-transitive kernel; i.e., f = fringe(R ∩ f;. ∩ ; f) for f := fringe(R). The ...
  70. [70]
    [PDF] Using minimal generators for composite isolated point extraction ...
    Fringe relation [25]: A fringe relation is a difunctional relation embedded in a BR R and computed by. R ◦ R−1 ◦ R ∩ R. It is denoted by Fringe(R) or Rd.
  71. [71]
    A new approach for textual feature selection based on N-composite ...
    Apr 29, 2019 · The Riguet's difunctional relation (fringe relation) (Riguet 1948), whose elements are defined as isolated points, describes invariant regular ...
  72. [72]
  73. [73]
    heap in nLab
    Sep 19, 2025 · In algebra, a heap is an algebraic structure which is almost that of a group structure but without the specification of a neutral element.
  74. [74]
    heap - PlanetMath.org
    Mar 22, 2013 · Then (H,f) ( H , f ) is a heap iff f(r,r,r)=r f ⁢ ( r , r , r ) = r for all r∈H r ∈ H . The first condition of a heap is automatically satisfied ...
  75. [75]
    [PDF] The theory of heaps and the Cartier–Foata monoid.
    According to Remark 2.3, these relations mean that if biRbj, then in any heap a piece bi must be either below or above a piece bj, more precisely, in the ...
  76. [76]
    Heap -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    A heap can be viewed as a labeled binary tree in which the label of the i th node is smaller than the labels of any of its descendents.
  77. [77]
    Thomas Jech - Set Theory
    ... proper class; otherwise,. S = {x ∈ V : x /∈ x} would be a set. Page 19. 1. Axioms of Set Theory. 9. Union. For any X there exists a set Y = J. X: (1.5). ∀X ∃Y ...
  78. [78]
    Formal Concept Analysis, Foundations and Applications
    Aug 7, 2025 · Rough sets and concept lattices are two complementary tools in data analysis, which are based on some specific binary relations on the universe.
  79. [79]
    [PDF] When Horn is All You Need
    The concept lattice of a disjunctive context is distributive. Every distributive lattice is isomorphic to the concept lattice of a disjunctive context.
  80. [80]
    Closure-based constraints in formal concept analysis - ScienceDirect
    We present a method of imposing constraints in extracting formal concepts (equivalently, closed itemsets or fixpoints of Galois connections) from a binary ...
  81. [81]
    Exploiting Formal Concept Analysis for Data Modeling in Data Lakes
    Aug 11, 2024 · This paper introduces a practical data visualization and analysis approach rooted in Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) to systematically clean, organize, and ...
  82. [82]
    fcaR, Formal Concept Analysis with R - The R Journal
    Jun 20, 2022 · Formal concept analysis (FCA) is a solid mathematical framework to manage information based on logic and lattice theory.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  83. [83]
  84. [84]
    Using minimal generators for composite isolated point extraction ...
    Apr 1, 2016 · Riguet's difunctional relation (fringe relation) [34], whose elements are defined as isolated points, describes invariant regular structures ...