User:IssaRice/Stringing together relations and binary operations: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
(Undo revision 2331 by IssaRice (talk))
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


For instance, if we have three real numbers <math>x,y,z</math> and the relation <math>\leq</math>, then <math>x \leq y \leq z</math> means that <math>x \leq y</math> and <math>y \leq z</math>. Since the relation is transitive, we also have <math>x \leq z</math>.
For instance, if we have three real numbers <math>x,y,z</math> and the relation <math>\leq</math>, then <math>x \leq y \leq z</math> means that <math>x \leq y</math> and <math>y \leq z</math>. Since the relation is transitive, we also have <math>x \leq z</math>.
Another example is given sets <math>A,B,C</math> we can write <math>A \subseteq B \subseteq C</math> or <math>A \supseteq B \supseteq C</math>.
In fact, the relation that is used does not have to be the same in both places. We might write <math>p \in B \subseteq U</math> to mean "<math>p \in B</math> and <math>B \subseteq U</math>".
On the other hand, if <math>*</math> is some binary operation on a set <math>S</math>, and <math>a,b,c \in S</math>, then <math>a*b*c</math> means <math>(a*b)*c</math> if <math>*</math> associates to the left and means <math>a*(b*c)</math> if <math>*</math> associates to the right. If <math>*</math> is associative, then these two are the same, so <math>a*b*c</math> means either/both.
A relation has type <math>S \times S \to \{T,F\}</math>, and a binary operation has type <math>S\times S \to S</math>. Things can get confusing when we take <math>S = \{T,F\}</math>, because now there are two possible interpretations (depending on whether we take the relation one or the binary operation one).
One interesting exception to this is when we use <math>\implies</math> between propositions. Let <math>p,q,r</math> be three propositions. What does <math>p \implies q \implies r</math> mean? Some possibilities are:
* <math>p \implies q</math> and <math>q \implies r</math>
* <math>p \implies (q \implies r)</math>
* <math>(p \implies q) \implies r</math>
other examples to look at:
<math>x \in A \times B</math> means <math>x \in (A\times B)</math>, not <math>\{T\}\times B</math> or <math>\{F\}\times B</math>. The interpretation "<math>x \in A</math> and <math>A \times B</math>" does not even parse since <math>A \times B</math> is not a statement.
<math>n\cdot m \mid k</math>

Latest revision as of 03:59, 4 August 2019

If R is a relation on a set X, and x,y,z are elements of X, we sometimes write xRyRz as an abbreviation of "xRy and yRz. This makes sense especially when R is a transitive relation, because in that case we also have xRz, which is suggested by the notation "xRyRz".

For instance, if we have three real numbers x,y,z and the relation ≤, then x≤y≤z means that x≤y and y≤z. Since the relation is transitive, we also have x≤z.

Another example is given sets A,B,C we can write A⊆B⊆C or A⊇B⊇C.

In fact, the relation that is used does not have to be the same in both places. We might write p∈B⊆U to mean "p∈B and B⊆U".

On the other hand, if * is some binary operation on a set S, and a,b,c∈S, then a*b*c means (a*b)*c if * associates to the left and means a*(b*c) if * associates to the right. If * is associative, then these two are the same, so a*b*c means either/both.

A relation has type S×S→{T,F}, and a binary operation has type S×S→S. Things can get confusing when we take S={T,F}, because now there are two possible interpretations (depending on whether we take the relation one or the binary operation one).

One interesting exception to this is when we use ⟹ between propositions. Let p,q,r be three propositions. What does p⟹q⟹r mean? Some possibilities are:

  • p⟹q and q⟹r
  • p⟹(q⟹r)
  • (p⟹q)⟹r

other examples to look at:

x∈A×B means x∈(A×B), not {T}×B or {F}×B. The interpretation "x∈A and A×B" does not even parse since A×B is not a statement.


n⋅m∣k