MarketBinary relation
Company Profile

Binary relation

In mathematics, a binary relation associates some elements of one set called the domain with some elements of another set called the codomain. Precisely, a binary relation over sets and is a set of ordered pairs , where is an element of and is an element of . It encodes the common concept of relation: an element is related to an element if and only if the pair belongs to the set of ordered pairs that defines the binary relation.

Definition
Given sets X and Y, the Cartesian product X \times Y is defined as \{ (x, y) \mid x \in X \text{ and } y \in Y \}, and its elements are called ordered pairs. A R over sets X and Y is a subset of X \times Y. The set X is called the The or When X = Y, a binary relation is called a (or ). To emphasize the fact that X and Y are allowed to be different, a binary relation is also called a heterogeneous relation. The prefix hetero is from the Greek ἕτερος (heteros, "other, another, different"). A heterogeneous relation has been called a rectangular relation, The terms correspondence, dyadic relation and two-place relation are synonyms for binary relation, though some authors use the term "binary relation" for any subset of a Cartesian product X \times Y without reference to X and Y, and reserve the term "correspondence" for a binary relation with reference to X and Y. In a binary relation, the order of the elements is important; if x \neq y then yRx can be true or false independently of xRy. For example, 3 divides 9, but 9 does not divide 3. == Operations ==
Operations
Union If R and S are binary relations over sets X and Y then R \cup S = \{ (x, y) \mid xRy \text{ or } xSy \} is the of R and S over X and Y. The identity element is the empty relation, in which no x is related to any y. For example, \leq is the union of and =, and \geq is the union of > and =. Intersection If R and S are binary relations over sets X and Y then R \cap S = \{ (x, y) \mid xRy \text{ and } xSy \} is the of R and S over X and Y. The identity element is the universal relation, in which every x is related to every y. For example, the relation "is divisible by 6" is the intersection of the relations "is divisible by 3" and "is divisible by 2". Composition If R is a binary relation over sets X and Y, and S is a binary relation over sets Y and Z then S \circ R = \{ (x, z) \mid \text{ there exists } y \in Y \text{ such that } xRy \text{ and } ySz \} (also denoted by R; S) is the of R and S over X and Z. If X=Y=Z, the identity element w.r.t. composition is the identity relation on X, in which x \in X is related only to itself. The order of R and S in the notation S \circ R used here agrees with the standard notational order for composition of functions. For example, the composition (is parent of)\circ(is mother of) yields (is grandmother of), while the composition (is mother of)\circ(is parent of) yields (is maternal grandparent of). For the latter case, if x is the parent of y and y is the mother of z, then x is the maternal grandparent of z. Converse If R is a binary relation over sets X and Y then R^\textsf{T} = \{ (y, x) \mid xRy \} is the , also called , of R over Y and X. For example, = is the converse of itself, as is \neq, and and > are each other's converse, as are \leq and \geq. A binary relation is equal to its converse if and only if it is symmetric. Complement If R is a binary relation over sets X and Y then \bar{R} = \{ (x, y) \mid \neg xRy \} (also denoted by \neg R) is the of R over X and Y. For example, = and \neq are each other's complement, as are \subseteq and \not \subseteq, \supseteq and \not \supseteq, \in and \not \in, and for total orders also and \geq, and > and \leq. The complement of the converse relation R^\textsf{T} is the converse of the complement: \overline{R^\mathsf{T}} = \bar{R}^\mathsf{T}. If X = Y, the complement has the following properties: • If a relation is symmetric, then so is the complement. • The complement of a reflexive relation is irreflexive—and vice versa. • The complement of a strict weak order is a total preorder—and vice versa. Restriction If R is a binary homogeneous relation over a set X and S is a subset of X then R_{\vert S} = \{ (x, y) \mid xRy \text{ and } x \in S \text{ and } y \in S \} is the of R to S over X. If R is a binary relation over sets X and Y and if S is a subset of X then R_{\vert S} = \{ (x, y) \mid xRy \text{ and } x \in S \} is the of R to S over X and Y. If a relation is reflexive, irreflexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, asymmetric, transitive, total, trichotomous, a partial order, total order, strict weak order, total preorder (weak order), or an equivalence relation, then so too are its restrictions. However, the transitive closure of a restriction is a subset of the restriction of the transitive closure, i.e., in general not equal. For example, restricting the relation "x is parent of y" to females yields the relation "x is mother of the woman y"; its transitive closure does not relate a woman with her paternal grandmother. On the other hand, the transitive closure of "is parent of" is "is ancestor of"; its restriction to females does relate a woman with her paternal grandmother. Also, the various concepts of completeness (not to be confused with being "total") do not carry over to restrictions. For example, over the real numbers a property of the relation \leq is that every non-empty subset S \subseteq \R with an upper bound in \R has a least upper bound (also called supremum) in \R. However, for the rational numbers this supremum is not necessarily rational, so the same property does not hold on the restriction of the relation \leq to the rational numbers. A binary relation R over sets X and Y is said to be a relation S over X and Y, written R \subseteq S, if R is a subset of S, that is, for all x \in X and y \in Y, if xRy, then xSy. If R is contained in S and S is contained in R, then R and S are called written R = S. If R is contained in S but S is not contained in R, then R is said to be than S, written R \subsetneq S. For example, on the rational numbers, the relation > is smaller than \geq, and equal to the composition > \circ >. Matrix representation Binary relations over sets X and Y can be represented algebraically by logical matrices indexed by X and Y with entries in the Boolean semiring (addition corresponds to OR and multiplication to AND) where matrix addition corresponds to union of relations, matrix multiplication corresponds to composition of relations (of a relation over X and Y and a relation over Y and Z), the Hadamard product corresponds to intersection of relations, the zero matrix corresponds to the empty relation, and the matrix of ones corresponds to the universal relation. Homogeneous relations (when X = Y) form a matrix semiring (indeed, a matrix semialgebra over the Boolean semiring) where the identity matrix corresponds to the identity relation. == Examples ==
Examples
{{olist While the 2nd example relation is surjective (see below), the 1st is not. :R = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} . The connectivity of the planet Earth can be viewed through R R^\mathsf{T} and R^\mathsf{T} R, the former being a 4 \times 4 relation on A, which is the universal relation (A \times A or a logical matrix of all ones). This universal relation reflects the fact that every ocean is separated from the others by at most one continent. On the other hand, R^\mathsf{T} R is a relation on B \times B which fails to be universal because at least two oceans must be traversed to voyage from Europe to Australia. Just as the clique is integral to relations on a set, so bicliques are used to describe heterogeneous relations; indeed, they are the "concepts" that generate a lattice associated with a relation. :\langle x, z\rangle = x \bar{z} + \bar{x}z\; where the overbar denotes conjugation. As a relation between some temporal events and some spatial events, hyperbolic orthogonality (as found in split-complex numbers) is a heterogeneous relation. : An incidence structure is a triple \mathbf D = (V, \mathbf B, I) where V and \mathbf B are any two disjoint sets and I is a binary relation between V and \mathbf B, i.e. I \subseteq V \times \mathbf B. The elements of V will be called , those of \mathbf B , and those of I . }} == Types of binary relations ==
Types of binary relations
s: one-to-one (in green), one-to-many (in blue), many-to-one (in red), many-to-many (in black). Some important types of binary relations R over sets X and Y are listed below. Uniqueness properties: • Injective (also called left-unique): for all x, y \in X and all z \in Y, if xRz and yRz then x = y. In other words, every element of the codomain has at most one preimage element. For such a relation, Y is called a primary key of R. (also called right-unique): for all x \in X and all y, z \in Y, if xRy and xRz then y = z. In other words, every element of the domain has at most one image element. Such a binary relation is called a or . For such a relation, \{ X \} is called of R. However, is a total relation over the positive integers, the rational numbers and the real numbers. Every reflexive relation is total: for a given x, choose y = x. • Surjective The usual ordering is not. == Sets versus classes ==
Sets versus classes
Certain mathematical "relations", such as "equal to", "subset of", and "member of", cannot be understood to be binary relations as defined above, because their domains and codomains cannot be taken to be sets in the usual systems of axiomatic set theory. For example, to model the general concept of "equality" as a binary relation =, take the domain and codomain to be the "class of all sets", which is not a set in the usual set theory. In most mathematical contexts, references to the relations of equality, membership and subset are harmless because they can be understood implicitly to be restricted to some set in the context. The usual work-around to this problem is to select a "large enough" set A, that contains all the objects of interest, and work with the restriction =_A instead of =. Similarly, the "subset of" relation \subseteq needs to be restricted to have domain and codomain P(A) (the power set of a specific set A): the resulting set relation can be denoted by \subseteq_A. Also, the "member of" relation needs to be restricted to have domain A and codomain P(A) to obtain a binary relation \in_A that is a set. Bertrand Russell has shown that assuming \in to be defined over all sets leads to a contradiction in naive set theory, see ''Russell's paradox''. Another solution to this problem is to use a set theory with proper classes, such as NBG or Morse–Kelley set theory, and allow the domain and codomain (and so the graph) to be proper classes: in such a theory, equality, membership, and subset are binary relations without special comment. (A minor modification needs to be made to the concept of the ordered triple (X, Y, G), as normally a proper class cannot be a member of an ordered tuple; or of course one can identify the binary relation with its graph in this context.) With this definition one can for instance define a binary relation over every set and its power set. == Homogeneous relation ==
Homogeneous relation
A homogeneous relation over a set X is a binary relation over X and itself, i.e. it is a subset of the Cartesian product X \times X. It is also simply called a (binary) relation over X. A homogeneous relation R over a set X may be identified with a directed simple graph permitting loops, where X is the vertex set and R is the edge set (there is an edge from a vertex x to a vertex y if and only if xRy). The set of all homogeneous relations \mathcal{B}(X) over a set X is the power set 2^{X \times X} which is a Boolean algebra augmented with the involution of mapping of a relation to its converse relation. Considering composition of relations as a binary operation on \mathcal{B}(X), it forms a semigroup with involution. Some important properties that a homogeneous relation R over a set X may have are: • : for all x \in X, xRx. For example, \geq is a reflexive relation but > is not. • : for all x \in X, not xRx. For example, > is an irreflexive relation, but \geq is not. • : for all x, y \in X, if xRy then yRx. For example, "is a blood relative of" is a symmetric relation. • : for all x, y \in X, if xRy and yRx then x = y. For example, \geq is an antisymmetric relation. • : for all x, y \in X, if xRy then not yRx. A relation is asymmetric if and only if it is both antisymmetric and irreflexive. For example, > is an asymmetric relation, but \geq is not. • : for all x, y, z \in X, if xRy and yRz then xRz. A transitive relation is irreflexive if and only if it is asymmetric. For example, "is ancestor of" is a transitive relation, while "is parent of" is not. • : for all x, y \in X, if x \neq y then xRy or yRx. • : for all x, y \in X, xRy or yRx. • : for all x, y \in X, if xRy , then some z \in X exists such that xRz and zRy. A is a relation that is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive. A is a relation that is irreflexive, asymmetric, and transitive. A is a relation that is reflexive, antisymmetric, transitive and connected. A is a relation that is irreflexive, asymmetric, transitive and connected. An is a relation that is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. For example, "x divides y" is a partial, but not a total order on natural numbers \N, "x " is a strict total order on \N, and "x is parallel to y" is an equivalence relation on the set of all lines in the Euclidean plane. All operations defined in section also apply to homogeneous relations. Beyond that, a homogeneous relation over a set X may be subjected to closure operations like: ; : the smallest reflexive relation over X containing R, ; : the smallest transitive relation over X containing R, ; : the smallest equivalence relation over X containing R. == Calculus of relations ==
Calculus of relations
Developments in algebraic logic have facilitated usage of binary relations. The calculus of relations includes the algebra of sets, extended by composition of relations and the use of converse relations. The inclusion R \subseteq S, meaning that aRb implies aSb, sets the scene in a lattice of relations. But since P \subseteq Q \equiv (P \cap \bar{Q} = \varnothing ) \equiv (P \cap Q = P), the inclusion symbol is superfluous. Nevertheless, composition of relations and manipulation of the operators according to Schröder rules, provides a calculus to work in the power set of A \times B. In contrast to homogeneous relations, the composition of relations operation is only a partial function. The necessity of matching target to source of composed relations has led to the suggestion that the study of heterogeneous relations is a chapter of category theory as in the category of sets, except that the morphisms of this category are relations. The of the category Rel are sets, and the relation-morphisms compose as required in a category. == Induced concept lattice ==
Induced concept lattice
Binary relations have been described through their induced concept lattices: A concept C \subset R satisfies two properties: • The logical matrix of C is the outer product of logical vectors C_{i j} = u_i v_j , \quad u, v logical vectors. • C is maximal, not contained in any other outer product. Thus C is described as a non-enlargeable rectangle. For a given relation R \subseteq X \times Y, the set of concepts, enlarged by their joins and meets, forms an "induced lattice of concepts", with inclusion \sqsubseteq forming a preorder. The MacNeille completion theorem (1937) (that any partial order may be embedded in a complete lattice) is cited in a 2013 survey article "Decomposition of relations on concept lattices". The decomposition is : R = f E g^\textsf{T}, where f and g are functions, called or left-total, functional relations in this context. The "induced concept lattice is isomorphic to the cut completion of the partial order E that belongs to the minimal decomposition (f, g, E) of the relation R." Particular cases are considered below: E total order corresponds to Ferrers type, and E identity corresponds to difunctional, a generalization of equivalence relation on a set. Relations may be ranked by the Schein rank which counts the number of concepts necessary to cover a relation. Structural analysis of relations with concepts provides an approach for data mining. == Particular relations ==
Particular relations
Proposition: If R is a surjective relation and R^\mathsf{T} is its transpose, then I \subseteq R^\textsf{T} R where I is the m \times m identity relation. • Proposition: If R is a serial relation, then I \subseteq R R^\textsf{T} where I is the n \times n identity relation. Difunctional The idea of a difunctional relation is to partition objects by distinguishing attributes, as a generalization of the concept of an equivalence relation. One way this can be done is with an intervening set Z = \{ x, y, z, \ldots \} of indicators. The partitioning relation R = F G^\textsf{T} is a composition of relations using relations F \subseteq A \times Z \text{ and } G \subseteq B \times Z. Jacques Riguet named these relations difunctional since the composition F G^\mathsf{T} involves functional relations, commonly called partial functions. In 1950 Riguet showed that such relations satisfy the inclusion: : R R^\textsf{T} R \subseteq R In automata theory, the term rectangular relation has also been used to denote a difunctional relation. This terminology recalls the fact that, when represented as a logical matrix, the columns and rows of a difunctional relation can be arranged as a block matrix with rectangular blocks of ones on the (asymmetric) main diagonal. More formally, a relation R on X \times Y is difunctional if and only if it can be written as the union of Cartesian products A_i \times B_i, where the A_i are a partition of a subset of X and the B_i likewise a partition of a subset of Y. Using the notation \{y \mid xRy\} = xR, a difunctional relation can also be characterized as a relation R such that wherever x_1 R and x_2 R have a non-empty intersection, then these two sets coincide; formally x_1 \cap x_2 \neq \varnothing implies x_1 R = x_2 R. In 1997 researchers found "utility of binary decomposition based on difunctional dependencies in database management." Furthermore, difunctional relations are fundamental in the study of bisimulations. The corresponding logical matrix of a general binary relation has rows which finish with a sequence of ones. Thus the dots of a Ferrer's diagram are changed to ones and aligned on the right in the matrix. An algebraic statement required for a Ferrers type relation R is R \bar{R}^\textsf{T} R \subseteq R. If any one of the relations R, \bar{R}, R^\textsf{T} is of Ferrers type, then all of them are. Contact Suppose B is the power set of A, the set of all subsets of A. Then a relation g is a contact relation if it satisfies three properties: • \text{for all } x \in A, Y = \{ x \} \text{ implies } xgY. • Y \subseteq Z \text{ and } xgY \text{ implies } xgZ. • \text{for all } y \in Y, ygZ \text{ and } xgY \text{ implies } xgZ. The set membership relation, \epsilon = "is an element of", satisfies these properties so \epsilon is a contact relation. The notion of a general contact relation was introduced by Georg Aumann in 1970. In terms of the calculus of relations, sufficient conditions for a contact relation include C^\textsf{T} \bar{C} \subseteq \ni \bar{C} \equiv C \overline{\ni \bar{C}} \subseteq C, where \ni is the converse of set membership (\in). == Preorder R\R ==
Preorder R\R
Every relation R generates a preorder R \backslash R which is the left residual. In terms of converse and complements, R \backslash R \equiv \overline{R^\textsf{T} \bar{R}}. Forming the diagonal of R^\textsf{T} \bar{R}, the corresponding row of R^{\textsf{T}} and column of \bar{R} will be of opposite logical values, so the diagonal is all zeros. Then : R^\textsf{T} \bar{R} \subseteq \bar{I} \implies I \subseteq \overline{R^\textsf{T} \bar{R}} = R \backslash R, so that R \backslash R is a reflexive relation. To show transitivity, one requires that (R\backslash R)(R\backslash R) \subseteq R \backslash R. Recall that X = R \backslash R is the largest relation such that R X \subseteq R. Then : R(R\backslash R) \subseteq R : R(R\backslash R) (R\backslash R )\subseteq R (repeat) : \equiv R^\textsf{T} \bar{R} \subseteq \overline{(R \backslash R)(R \backslash R)} (Schröder's rule) : \equiv (R \backslash R)(R \backslash R) \subseteq \overline{R^\textsf{T} \bar{R}} (complementation) : \equiv (R \backslash R)(R \backslash R) \subseteq R \backslash R. (definition) The inclusion relation Ω on the power set of U can be obtained in this way from the membership relation \in on subsets of U: : \Omega = \overline{\ni \bar{\in}} = \in \backslash \in . == Fringe of a relation ==
Fringe of a relation
Given a relation R, its fringe is the sub-relation defined as \operatorname{fringe}(R) = R \cap \overline{R \bar{R}^\textsf{T} R}. When R is a partial identity relation, difunctional, or a block diagonal relation, then \operatorname{fringe}(R) = R. Otherwise the \operatorname{fringe} operator selects a boundary sub-relation described in terms of its logical matrix: \operatorname{fringe}(R) is the side diagonal if R is an upper right triangular linear order or strict order. \operatorname{fringe}(R) is the block fringe if R is irreflexive (R \subseteq \bar{I}) or upper right block triangular. \operatorname{fringe}(R) is a sequence of boundary rectangles when R is of Ferrers type. On the other hand, \operatorname{fringe}(R) = \emptyset when R is a dense, linear, strict order. == Mathematical heaps ==
Mathematical heaps
Given two sets A and B, the set of binary relations between them \mathcal{B}(A,B) can be equipped with a ternary operation [a, b, c] = a b^\textsf{T} c where b^\mathsf{T} denotes the converse relation of b. In 1953 Viktor Wagner used properties of this ternary operation to define semiheaps, heaps, and generalized heaps. The contrast of heterogeneous and homogeneous relations is highlighted by these definitions: == See also ==
tickerdossier.comtickerdossier.substack.com