Re: Relations And Their Divisitudes

Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.inquiry,gmane.comp.misc.ontology.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

RATD.  Discussion Note 1

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JA = Jon Awbrey
TJ = Tom Johnston

TJ: From an earlier email of yours, we have:

[begin JA:

The 1-adic "projections" Proj_X, Proj_Y, Proj_Z,
alternatively written as p_1,    p_2,    p_3,
as applying to a 3-adic relation L c X x Y x Z,
along with the equivalent forms of application
L_X = p_1 (L), L_Y = p_2 (L), L_Z = p_3(L),
respectively, are defined as follows:

Proj_X (L)  =  L_X  =  {x in X : <x, y, z> in L for some y in Y, z in Z},

Proj_Y (L)  =  L_Y  =  {y in Y : <x, y, z> in L for some x in X, z in Z},

Proj_Z (L)  =  L_Z  =  {z in Z : <x, y, z> in L for some x in X, y in Y}.

end JA.]

TJ: In "L c X x Y x Z", what does "L c" mean?
    "Language L contains/can express"?

I'm just using "c" for the "contained in" or "subset of" symbol.
Thus, "L c X x Y x Z" just says that L is a subset of X x Y x Z.
I use the word "in" for the "element of" or membership relation.

TJ: What does "{x in X : <x, y, z> in L for some y in Y, z in Z}" mean?
    Does it mean "The set of all x's in (the domain) X such that,
    for each of them, there exists an <x, y, z> tuple in the
    3-adic relation under discussion (in which, necessarily,
    the y in that tuple is in the domain Y and
    the z in that tuple is in the domain Z)"?

Exactement.

A little more colloquially,

"{x in X : <x, y, z> in L for some y in Y, z in Z}"

might be read as "the set of all x in X where
there is a triple <x, y, z> in the relation L".

TJ: And do you mean your projection to be a set, and not a multiset
    (as I think another email of yours indicates you do)?  If so, the
    "an" in my paraphrase should be replaced by "one or more", right?

Yes^2, that would be the usual reading of the existential quantifier
signified by the phrase "for some y in Y, z in Z" in the set-builder.

Anyway, I think that's right.  Let me know if it makes sense or not.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.