Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Composition of relations

In mathematics, particularly in and , the composition of relations is a fundamental operation that combines two defined on sets to produce a new . Specifically, if R is a from a set A to a set B (i.e., R \subseteq A \times B) and S is a from B to a set C (i.e., S \subseteq B \times C), then the composition S \circ R (or sometimes denoted R ; S) is the from A to C defined by (a, c) \in S \circ R if and only if there exists some b \in B such that (a, b) \in R and (b, c) \in S. This operation generalizes the of functions, as any function can be viewed as a special type of relation, and it extends the concept by allowing intermediate elements without requiring uniqueness or totality. The composition of relations exhibits several key properties that mirror those of function composition but apply more broadly. Notably, it is associative: for relations R: A \to B, S: B \to C, and T: C \to D, the equality T \circ (S \circ R) = (T \circ S) \circ R holds, meaning parentheses can be omitted in chains of compositions without ambiguity. Unlike function composition, relation composition does not require invertibility, but it interacts meaningfully with other relation operations like , , and ; for example, the converse of a composition satisfies (S \circ R)^{-1} = R^{-1} \circ S^{-1}. These properties make composition a cornerstone in and , where relations can be seen as morphisms between sets. Beyond , the composition of relations finds practical applications in and . In relational databases, composing relations corresponds to the natural join operation, enabling queries that chain conditions across multiple tables. It also underpins , where relations represent edges, and composition models paths of length two or more. The formal study of the calculus of binary relations originated in the 19th century, introduced by in 1860 and further developed by and Ernst Schröder.

Fundamentals

Definition

In , given R \subseteq X \times Y and S \subseteq Y \times Z, their composition, often denoted S \circ R, is the S \circ R \subseteq X \times Z defined as the set of all ordered pairs (x, z) such that there exists some y \in Y satisfying (x, y) \in R and (y, z) \in S. This construction captures the transitive linkage between elements of X and Z through intermediate elements in Y, formalized via over Y. When R and S are functional relations—meaning each element in the maps to exactly one element in the —the composition S \circ R reduces precisely to the standard of functions, where (S \circ R)(x) = S(R(x)) for x \in X. The concept of relation composition, introduced by in 1860 and developed by , was systematized by Ernst Schröder in the 1890s, particularly in his work on the calculus of relations within the algebra of logic.

Notation and Variations

The composition of two binary relations R \subseteq X \times Y and S \subseteq Y \times Z is commonly denoted in modern mathematical literature as S \circ R, where the circle symbol \circ indicates the relational product, with R applied first followed by S. This notation aligns with the standard convention for , emphasizing the sequential application from right to left. An alternative infix notation uses juxtaposition, writing RS for the same operation, particularly in contexts where the relations are treated as elements of a under ; however, this form requires care to distinguish it from other binary operations on relations. Historically, the semicolon notation R ; S—again with R first—was introduced by Ernst Schröder in his 1895 treatise on the algebra and logic of relative theory, where it served as the infix operator for the relative product of relatives (binary relations). adopted and formalized this semicolon notation in his 1941 axiomatic treatment of the calculus of relations, defining x \, R ; S \, y to hold if there exists z such that x \, R \, z and z \, S \, y, and using it throughout his development of relation algebras. In domain-specific formalisms, variations reflect syntactic or applicative needs. The , a language for software, employs the ; for forward relational composition (with right-to-left application, as in R ; S), but also supports the dedicated Unicode symbol \twoheadrightarrow (U+2A3E) to explicitly denote relational composition in typeset documents. In , foundational to database query languages, direct composition of relations is not a primitive but is realized through the natural join operator \bowtie, which combines tuples from two relations on matching attributes, effectively computing the relational product under equality conditions. A key concern with juxtaposition RS is its potential , as it may be misinterpreted as the R \cup S or, less commonly, the R \times S in texts where these operations lack explicit symbols; authors often mitigate this by reserving juxtaposition strictly for or qualifying it contextually.

Properties and Generalizations

Algebraic Properties

Relation exhibits several fundamental algebraic properties that mirror those of binary operations in . Foremost among these is associativity: for binary relations R \subseteq X \times Y, S \subseteq Y \times Z, and T \subseteq Z \times W, the composition satisfies (R \circ S) \circ T = R \circ (S \circ T). This property allows for unambiguous iteration of compositions without parentheses, facilitating the definition of powers of relations, such as transitive closures. The operation also possesses an . For a set X, the relation I_X = \{(x, x) \mid x \in X\} \subseteq X \times X acts as a two-sided unit under composition: if R \subseteq X \times Y, then R \circ I_X = R and I_Y \circ R = R. This neutral behavior ensures that adjoining the identity does not alter the relation, analogous to the role of the in . In addition, the empty relation \emptyset functions as an absorbing zero element. For any relation R compatible with \emptyset, the compositions R \circ \emptyset = \emptyset and \emptyset \circ R = \emptyset. This absorption property highlights how the absence of connecting elements in one relation renders the overall composition void, underscoring the set-theoretic foundations of the operation. These properties collectively endow the collection of all binary relations on a fixed set X, denoted \mathrm{Rel}(X), with a monoid structure under composition. Specifically, (\mathrm{Rel}(X), \circ, I_X) forms a monoid, where associativity ensures well-defined multiple compositions and I_X provides the required unit. This algebraic framework is central to relation algebra and enables the study of relations as elements in a semigroup with identity. Composition further interacts compatibly with the converse operation on relations. The converse of a relation R \subseteq X \times Y is R^T = \{(y, x) \mid (x, y) \in R\} \subseteq Y \times X, which reverses the direction of the . For compatible relations R and S, the key identity holds: (R \circ S)^T = S^T \circ R^T. This reversal property preserves the chaining while flipping the , proving useful in analyzing symmetries and inverses in relational systems.

Mathematical Generalizations

In , the composition of relations generalizes to the category Rel, where objects are sets and morphisms are binary between them, with defined by the standard relational product: for relations R \subseteq A \times B and S \subseteq B \times C, the composite S \circ R = \{(a, c) \mid \exists b \in B : (a, b) \in R \land (b, c) \in S\}.73066-8) This category is dagger-compact and serves as the primary example of an , a bicategory where every has a , enabling a of relations that captures properties like associativity and converse preservation under composition.73066-8) The structure of Rel highlights how relation composition extends beyond mere set-theoretic operations to a framework supporting enriched categorical constructions, such as monoidal structures induced by Cartesian products. In more abstract settings, such as regular categories—those with finite limits, coequalizers of kernel pairs, and pullback-stable regular epimorphisms—internal relations are defined using or jointly monic pairs. A relation from object r to s is a jointly monic r \leftarrow x \twoheadrightarrow s, where the pair (f: x \to r, g: x \to s) induces a \langle f, g \rangle: x \to r \times s, representing subobjects of the product. Composition of two such relations, say r \leftarrow x \twoheadrightarrow s and s \leftarrow y \twoheadrightarrow t, proceeds via the x \times_s y along the codomain and domain maps, followed by taking the regular image of the induced map to r \times t to ensure the result is again a jointly monic . This construction yields a bicategory of relations internal to the regular category, equivalent to the 2-category of relational po-categories, where is associative and independent of the choice of representatives. Linear relations provide a further generalization over vector spaces or modules, where a relation between vector spaces V and W over a field k (such as \mathbb{F}_2) is a linear subspace L \subseteq V \times W, closed under addition and scalar multiplication. Composition mirrors the relational case but leverages linearity: for L \subseteq V \times W and M \subseteq W \times U, the composite is L \circ M = \{(v, u) \mid \exists w \in W.\ (v, w) \in L \land (w, u) \in M \}, which is again a linear subspace of V \times U. In finite-dimensional settings over \mathbb{F}_2, the category of linear relations is isomorphic to the phase-free fragment of the qubit ZX-calculus, where linear maps and relations are depicted as Z- and X-spiders connected by wires, allowing diagrammatic simplification of composites through rewrite rules like the bialgebra laws. This framework is particularly useful in quantum information, where ZX-diagrams encode compositions of linear relations on Hilbert spaces. Profunctors, also known as distributors, extend relation composition to arbitrary categories, generalizing binary relations as bifunctors P: C^{op} \times D \to \mathbf{Set} that assign to objects c \in C and d \in D a set of "relations" between them. Composition of profunctors P: C \nrightarrow D and Q: D \nrightarrow E is given by the coend formula (Q \circ P)(c, e) = \int^{d \in D} Q(d, e) \times P(c, d), which quotients by the actions of morphisms in D to ensure functoriality, forming the bicategory \mathbf{Prof} of categories, profunctors, and natural transformations. When restricted to the category of sets, profunctors recover ordinary relations, with composition reducing to the relational product, but in general, this construction applies to arrow categories (where objects are arrows in a base category and morphisms are commuting squares) by viewing arrows as fibrations and profunctors as generalized relations between them, preserving associativity up to in the bicategorical sense. This abstraction underpins applications in and open systems modeling, where profunctor composition models relational queries across structured categories.

Representation and Computation

Matrix Composition

A binary relation R \subseteq X \times Y on finite sets X = \{x_1, \dots, x_m\} and Y = \{y_1, \dots, y_n\} can be represented by an m \times n M_R, where the entry (M_R)_{i,j} = 1 if (x_i, y_j) \in R and $0 otherwise. This representation uses entries to encode membership directly, facilitating algebraic manipulation. The composition S \circ R, where R \subseteq X \times Y and S \subseteq Y \times Z for finite Z = \{z_1, \dots, z_p\}, corresponds to the Boolean matrix product M_{S \circ R} = M_R * M_S. In this product, addition is the logical OR (+, with $1 + 1 = 1) and multiplication is the logical AND (\cdot). Thus, the entry in row i and column k of M_{S \circ R} is computed as \bigvee_{j=1}^n \left( (M_R)_{i,j} \wedge (M_S)_{j,k} \right), indicating existence of an intermediate element y_j connecting x_i to z_k. For illustration, consider sets X = \{1,2\}, Y = \{a,b\}, Z = \{A,B\}, with R = \{(1,a), (2,a), (2,b)\} so M_R = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, and S = \{(a,A), (b,B)\} so M_S = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. The composition yields S \circ R = \{(1,A), (2,A), (2,B)\}, with M_{S \circ R} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. This matrix approach enables efficient computation of relation compositions for finite sets, as the Boolean product can be evaluated in O(m n p) time using standard algorithms adapted for logical operations. Moreover, when X = Y = Z, the logical matrix aligns with the of the representing the , allowing composition to model path existence in .

Heterogeneous Relations

Heterogeneous relations arise in the of where the underlying sets differ in type or , allowing for more general structures beyond homogeneous cases. A R \subseteq X \times Y is heterogeneous if X and Y are distinct sets, possibly with |X| \neq |Y|. The with another S \subseteq Y \times Z follows the standard definition: (x, z) \in S \circ R if and only if there exists y \in Y such that (x, y) \in R and (y, z) \in S. This is valid whenever the of R aligns with the domain of S, even if X \neq Z or |X| \neq |Z|, enabling compositions across mismatched domains and codomains. Key constructions in heterogeneous relation algebra involve the R^T \subseteq Y \times X, defined by (y, x) \in R^T if and only if (x, y) \in R. The self-composition R R^T \subseteq X \times X captures within X; in particular, R is on X (every x \in X relates to some y \in Y) if and only if the identity relation I_X \subseteq X \times X satisfies I_X \subseteq R R^T, since (x, x) \in R R^T holds precisely when there exists y with (x, y) \in R. Dually, R^T R \subseteq Y \times Y assesses coverage on Y; R is surjective on Y (every y \in Y is related to by some x \in X) if and only if I_Y \subseteq R^T R. These tests are fundamental for verifying completeness and exhaustiveness in relational mappings between disparate sets. Heterogeneous relations are computationally represented by rectangular Boolean matrices, with rows indexed by elements of X and columns by Y, where entry (i, j) = 1 if (x_i, y_j) \in R and 0 otherwise. For composition S \circ R with R an |X| \times |Y| matrix and S a |Y| \times |Z| matrix, the result is the |X| \times |Z| matrix product: (S \circ R)_{i k} = \bigvee_{j=1}^{|Y|} \left( R_{i j} \wedge S_{j k} \right), using disjunction (\vee) as addition and conjunction (\wedge) as in the semiring. This accommodates dimensional heterogeneity, unlike square matrices in homogeneous cases. Consider sets A = \{\text{[France](/page/France)}, \text{[Germany](/page/Germany)}, \text{[Italy](/page/Italy)}, \text{[Switzerland](/page/Switzerland)}\} of countries and B = \{\text{[French](/page/French)}, \text{[German](/page/German)}, \text{[Italian](/page/Italian)}\} of languages. The border relation R \subseteq A \times A (symmetric) includes: , , , . Its matrix (rows/columns: F, G, I, S) is: R = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}. The speaking relation S \subseteq A \times B is given by: In matrix form (rows: F, G, I, S; columns: Fr, Ge, It): S = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. The composition S \circ R \subseteq A \times B holds for country a and language l if some bordering country speaks l. Computing the Boolean product yields: For instance, relates to via (which borders Italy and speaks French). This example demonstrates how propagates information across heterogeneous domains, identifying languages accessible through neighboring s.

Equational and Structural Features

Schröder Rules

The Schröder rules provide an equational framework for establishing inclusions between relations using , the operation, and complements, enabling purely algebraic deductions about relational properties. These rules transform one inclusion into an equivalent form that may be simpler to verify, serving as a deductive tool to prove relation inclusions without relying on or semantic interpretations. The core rule is the following equivalence: QR \subseteq S \iff Q^T \bar{S} \subseteq \bar{R} where Q^T denotes the (transpose) of the relation Q, and \bar{R} denotes the complement of R relative to the underlying universal . This equivalence arises from applying the contrapositive to the definition of relational and leveraging the interaction between composition and complements. Variants are generated by cyclically permuting the positions of Q, R, and S, along with appropriate adjustments to converses and complements, yielding additional core forms such as: QR \subseteq S \iff \bar{S} R^T \subseteq \bar{Q} QR \subseteq S \iff \bar{R}^T S \subseteq \bar{Q}^T These basic equivalences, when combined with —which relate intersections and unions via complements (\overline{P \cap Q} = \bar{P} \cup \bar{Q} and \overline{P \cup Q} = \bar{P} \cap \bar{Q})—produce dual forms for complementary inclusions (e.g., replacing subsets with supersets or unions). The resulting full set comprises eight equivalences that comprehensively cover inclusions involving composed relations, including De Morgan-inspired variants originally explored in his work on the logic of relatives and syllogistic reasoning. Ernst Schröder formalized and axiomatized these rules in the third volume of his 1895 treatise Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik, integrating them into a systematic of relations that built upon earlier contributions from De Morgan and . This axiomatization established the Schröder rules as a cornerstone of , later proven complete by in 1941, meaning that, together with Boolean axioms and basic compositional identities, they suffice to derive all valid equational statements about relations. In application, facilitate step-by-step transformations; for instance, a difficult QR \subseteq S can be rewritten via the core to Q^T \bar{S} \subseteq \bar{R}, potentially simplifying verification if properties of Q^T or \bar{S} are known. This algebraic approach underpins formal proofs in and has been mechanized in theorem provers to ensure soundness.

Quotients

In , the quotient operations provide a form of for binary relations, analogous to how decomposes products in . These operations are residuals, serving as adjoints to relation . The left quotient (or left ) of relations A and B, denoted A / B, is the largest relation X such that X \circ B \subseteq A, where \circ denotes . Set-theoretically, if A \subseteq X \times Z and B \subseteq Y \times Z, then (x, y) \in A / B if and only if for all z \in Z, whenever (y, z) \in B, it follows that (x, z) \in A. The right quotient (or right residual) A \setminus B is dually defined as the largest X such that A \circ X \subseteq B. For A \subseteq X \times Y and B \subseteq X \times Z, (y, z) \in A \setminus B for all x \in X, whenever (x, y) \in A, it follows that (x, z) \in B. The symmetric quotient combines aspects of both, defined for relations Q: X \to Y and S: X \to Z sharing a X as the largest \mathrm{syq}(Q, S): Y \to Z such that Q \circ \mathrm{syq}(Q, S) = S; set-theoretically, \mathrm{syq}(Q, S) = \{(y, z) \mid \forall x \in X, (x, y) \in Q \iff (x, z) \in S\}, i.e., pairs (y, z) where y and z have identical sets of predecessors. It can be expressed using s as \mathrm{syq}(Q, S) = Q^T \circ S \setminus Q^T \circ \top , adjusted appropriately in the (where \top is the universal ), but the direct definition highlights its role in equating columns. A key property links quotients to composition and the converse: the left quotient satisfies A / B = \neg (\neg A \circ B^\top), expressing it via complementation, composition, and converse in the Boolean setting of relation algebras. Dually, the right quotient is A \setminus B = \neg (B^\top \circ \neg A). These ensure the residuation laws hold: X \circ B \subseteq A if and only if X \subseteq A / B, facilitating decomposition of composite relations. Consider a simple example to illustrate the right . Let the be \{1,2,3\}, with A = \{(1,2)\} (relating 1 to 2) and B = \{(1,3)\} (relating 1 to 3). The right A \setminus B consists of pairs (y,z) where for every x with (x,y) \in A, we have (x,z) \in B. Here, y=2 (the only such y), and for x=1, (1,2) \in A requires (1,z) \in B, so z=3. Thus, A \setminus B = \{(2,3)\}. Composing, A \circ \{(2,3)\} = \{(1,3)\} \subseteq B, confirming it is the largest such . In applications to constraint satisfaction, quotients decompose complex relations into constraints, such as restricting possible assignments. For Sudoku solving on a simple 2x2 grid (analogous to a mini-Latin square with symbols {1,2}), define the row constraint relation R where (position, value) holds if the value is allowed in that row position, initially all pairs except filled cells. The column constraint C similarly restricts values per column. The left quotient R / C yields pairs where row-allowed values satisfy all column constraints, iteratively refining possibilities: start with a grid where top-left is filled with 1 (forbidding 1 in row 1 and column 1); compute R / C to eliminate 1 from other row 1 and column 1 positions, then propagate to the quotient with box constraints Box via (R / C) / Box, revealing unique placements like bottom-right as 2. This step-by-step refinement decomposes the full puzzle relation into solvable subconstraints.

Alternative Forms of Composition

Join Operation

In the context of binary relations, the join operation, also referred to as the fork, provides an alternative to sequential composition by combining two relations sharing a common domain. Given relations R \subseteq X \times Y and S \subseteq X \times Z, the join \langle R, S \rangle, or \theta, is the binary relation \theta \subseteq Y \times Z defined by (y, z) \in \theta if and only if there exists some x \in X such that (x, y) \in R and (x, z) \in S. This construction fuses the relations in parallel, associating elements of the codomains Y and Z through their connections to the shared domain X. In concrete terms, within fork algebras—an extension of relation algebras—the fork operator \nabla realizes this as R \nabla S = \{ \langle x, \star(y, z) \rangle \mid x R y \land x S z \}, where \star encodes pairs into the universe to maintain a binary relation structure, effectively yielding the desired pairing on Y \times Z. This join relates to standard relation composition as a diagonal or parallel variant, particularly in where it manifests as a natural join followed by . Specifically, \theta = \pi_{Y,Z} (R \ltimes_X S), with \ltimes_X denoting the -join (or equijoin) on the common attribute X, and \pi_{Y,Z} the onto the attributes; this eliminates the intermediate X while preserving the fused associations. Introduced in foundational work on the , the natural join operation inherently captures such fusions for tables (viewed as relations) sharing attributes, enabling queries that correlate across parallel paths rather than chains. The join operation exhibits commutativity, satisfying \langle R, S \rangle = \langle S, R \rangle up to swapping the codomains (i.e., the relation on Y \times Z matches that on Z \times Y under exchange), reflecting its symmetric treatment of the input relations. In the category Rel of sets and binary relations (with composition as morphisms), this corresponds to the universal mediating relation in the product diagram: for codomains Y and Z, the Cartesian product Y \times Z serves as the product object, with projections inducing the fork as the unique relation factoring through the common domain, linking to categorical products; coproducts in Rel, realized via disjoint unions, provide the dual structure for parallel decompositions. Unlike sequential composition, which chains relations end-to-end (codomain of one matching domain of the next), the join operates in parallel, emphasizing fusion over chaining and distinguishing it as a non-associative, domain-centric alternative.

Applications in Other Domains

The join operation finds applications in relational methods for , particularly in fork algebras, which extend relation algebras with the operator to support program specification and . Fork algebras enable the formal modeling of concurrent processes and , where parallel relations represent simultaneous actions or dependencies sharing inputs, facilitating proofs of correctness for algorithms like greedy strategies or sorting networks. In , the join supports correlating attributes from sharing a , such as deriving a between employee skills and project requirements via a common department attribute, using equijoin and to fuse paths without intermediate chaining. This aids in integration and query optimization for complex associations. In , the join variant composes constraints sharing a variable, pruning solution spaces by enforcing consistency across multiple simultaneously, as in arc consistency for all-different constraints in puzzles like Sudoku.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Combining relations
    Definition: Let R be a relation from a set A to a set B and S a relation from B to a set C. The composite of R and S is the relation consisting of the ordered ...
  2. [2]
    Relations
    Composition. Just like functions, relations can be composed: given R:A→B and S:B→C we define (S∘R):A→C by the rule (x,z)∈(S∘R) if and only if there exists some ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Introduction to Relations - FSU Math
    Discussion. The composition of two relations can be thought of as a generalization of the composition of two functions, as the following exercise shows. ...
  4. [4]
    Composition of Functions - Department of Mathematics at UTSA
    Jan 20, 2022 · Properties. The composition of functions is always associative—a property inherited from the composition of relations. That is, if f, g, and h ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Section 4.1: Properties of Binary Relations
    Composition of Relations. If R and S are binary relations, then the composition of R and S is. R ᐤ S = {(x,z) | x R y and y S z for some y }. A. B. C. D. A. B.
  6. [6]
    Function Composition and Inverse (CSCI 2824, Spring 2015)
    Relation composition is similar to function composition. It is an important operation in databases and is therefore called a join of two relations in database ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Chapter 2 Relations, Functions, Partial Functions
    COMPOSITION OF RELATIONS AND FUNCTIONS. 267. 2.4 Composition of Relations and Functions. We begin with the definition of the composition of rela- tions.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] 1 Initial Notation and Definitions 2 Binary Relations
    The composition of B and C is denoted B; C and is the set {hb, ci : h∃x :: bBx ∧ xCci}. • For all natural numbers i, Bi+1 is Bi; B. Observation 1 Prove the ...<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Lecture 16 Notes
    Mar 7, 2014 · Relation composition is similar to function composition. It is an important operation in databases and is therefore called a join of two ...
  10. [10]
    The Algebra of Logic Tradition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Mar 2, 2009 · According to him, Schröder's idea of solving a relational equation was a precursor of Skolem functions, and Schröder inspired Löwenheim's ...
  11. [11]
    relation composition - PlanetMath
    Oct 24, 2013 · The first order of business is to define the operation on relations that is variously known as the composition of relations, relational composition, or ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] On the Calculus of Relations
    These include first four relation constants, namely the symbol '1' for the universal relation, the symbol '0, for the null relation, the symbol '1" for the ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Relational Algebra - Stanford InfoLab
    Three notations, just as in arithmetic: 1. Sequences of assignment statements. 2. Expressions with several operators. 3. Expression trees.
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Florida State University Course Notes MAD 3105 Discrete ...
    MAD 3105 Discrete Mathematics II. Page 2. Florida State University. Tallahassee ... (5) The composition of a relation and its inverse is not necessarily equal to ...
  15. [15]
    Relation algebra | Logic Notes - ANU
    Relation algebra provides a beautifully concise notation for representing many properties of systems of relations, and by extension quite a lot of mathematics.
  16. [16]
    Regular and relational categories: Revisiting 'Cartesian bicategories I'
    Aug 30, 2019 · Our main contribution is an explicit proof that the 2-category of regular categories is equivalent to that of relational po-categories.
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Week 4-5: Binary Relations - HKUST Math Department
    (a) By definition of composition of relations, (w, y) ∈ R. (J i∈I. Ri. ) is equivalent to that there exists an x ∈ X such that (w, x) ∈ R and. (x, y) ∈. J i ...
  18. [18]
    None
    ### Summary of Binary Relations, Matrix Representation, and Composition via Matrix Multiplication
  19. [19]
    [PDF] An Algebraic Approach to Multirelations and their Properties
    In particular, note that property (4) is a special case of the Schröder equivalences which hold for relations. Also similarly to relations, property (6) shows ...
  20. [20]
    (PDF) The Origin Of Relation Algebras In The Development And ...
    Jul 17, 2025 · This paper introduces the calculus of relations and the theory of relation algebras through a review of these historical developments.
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Relation Algebra - Archive of Formal Proofs
    The following lemmas deal with variants of the Peirce law, the Schröder laws and the Dedekind law. Some of them are obtained from Boolean alge- bras with ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Origins of the Calculus of Binary Relations - Stanford University
    Schröder dropped the comma from a, b and the two logical connectives thereafter settled down to a+b and ab, at least for the calculus of relations if not ...
  23. [23]
    Symmetric quotients and domain constructions - ScienceDirect.com
    We introduce the symmetric quotient of two relations as a new construct in abstract relational algebra generalizing the notion of a “noyau” of Riguet.
  24. [24]
    The complexity of constraint satisfaction problems for small relation ...
    In this paper we analyze the computational complexity of the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a finite set of constraints built on any small relation ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] How to say Greedy in Fork Algebras - SEDICI - UNLP
    fork algebra operators are assumed to hold. ... [8] Frias, M.F., Baum, G.A., Haeberer, A.M. and ... Frias, M.F., Fork Algebras as Algebras of Logic, in ...
  26. [26]
    A relational model of data for large shared data banks
    This paper is concerned with the application of ele- mentary relation theory to systems which provide shared access to large banks of formatted data. Except for ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Relations in Categories
    Jun 15, 2000 · The calculus of binary relations played an important role in the interaction between algebra ... The category Rel(C) is (¯EF ,¯MF )-structured.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Chapter 7: Relational Database Design
    Composition of Relational Operations. ▫ The result of a relational-algebra operation is relation and therefore of relational-algebra operations can be composed.
  29. [29]
  30. [30]
    Composition-based Multi-Relational Graph Convolutional Networks
    Nov 8, 2019 · In this paper, we propose CompGCN, a novel Graph Convolutional framework which jointly embeds both nodes and relations in a relational graph.
  31. [31]
    [PDF] ZX-calculus for the working quantum computer scientist - arXiv
    Dec 29, 2020 · The first half of this review gives a gentle introduction to the ZX-calculus suitable for those fa- miliar with the basics of quantum computing.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Solving Functional Constraints by Variable Substitution and ...
    The other operation is the composition, denoted by the symbol “◦” of two constraints sharing a variable. The composition of two relations is: cjk ◦ cij ...