Talk:Relation (mathematics)

Convert to overview of relations[edit]

02-May-09: The page should be converted into a short overview of the topic, as already named appropriately, to describe "Relation (mathematics)". -Wikid77 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge directed relation[edit]

02-May-09: I suggest merging small sub-articles, such as "directed relation", into the article "relation (mathematics)" but rewritten as a short general introduction to relations, with small sections to explain various types of mathematical relations, and links to the larger sub-articles. If the page "relation (mathematics)" were treated as merely a disambiguation page, then each small sub-article (remaining stubs for 2 years) would have no place to be merged. Instead, the page "relation (mathematics)" should be rewritten as a short introduction to relations, with small sections to explain various types of mathematical relations (allowing text to be merged onto that page). -Wikid77 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found two such articles and disposed of them differently. The problem I see with your approach is that it would deal almost exclusively with binary relations. The current article is a tiny content fork of finitary relation and binary relation, and we should solve this problem, rather than making it even worse. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the history of the current article. I wasn't aware that you had only recently taken the redirect and turned it into this list. Since this is a fresh content fork, I am reverting this bold move now, per WP:BRD. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in case you are not aware: All but two of the links in your list are to articles on properties that a binary relation may or may not have. The remaining links were for binary relations in general, and for the more general finitary relations. In mathematics, "relation" almost always refers to finitary relations, but most of the incoming links (except for those from Template:Logic, which I just updated) will always be for binary relations.

I think I agree with your idea to write an article about properties of binary relations. But it should be a sub-article of Binary relation, probably the "main article" for Binary relation#Relations over a set. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect target[edit]

This page, "Relation (mathematics)", got a fresh start as a redirect on 2009-04-21, when the article at "Relation (mathematics)" was moved to "Finitary relation" (replacing a redirect there). On 2009-05-02, someone made it into an article stub (though it highly resembled a disambiguation page). On 2009-05-15, someone changed it back to a redirect, but to "Binary relation". A better target MIGHT be Relation (disambiguation)#Mathematics, but one would have to check first whether that change would work with the 166 articles that link to "Relation (mathematics)" – whether they refer to "binary relation" specifically, "mathematical relation" in general, or even something else. This is a little beyond me because there are many "relation" articles and I don't know their taxonomy.

Similar articles that also redirect to "Relation (mathematics)" include "Mathematical relation", "Mathematical relationship", "MathematicalRelation", "Relation (math)", "Relation (mathematics)", "Relation symbol", "Relational mathematics", and "Correspondence (mathematics)". (I haven't counted uses of these.) (Some might want different targets.) - A876 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring towards a more introductory article[edit]

This article originates from a copy of Binary relation, and is intended to become a more introductory version of the latter. Here are some suggestions:

Start the (lead of the) article with explanations about homogeneous binary relations (without using that name explicitly) since they are the most popular subclass of relations.
Add a section "Generalizations" at the article end to mention (1) non-homogeneous binary relations and (2) n-ary relations for n≠2. I guess, 1-2 examples, and a {{main}} link is sufficient for each of them.
Thin out the present stuff by removing advanced issues, like Relation_(mathematics)#Matrix representation, Relation_(mathematics)#Sets versus classes, Relation_(mathematics)#Enumeration, and the less popular properties of homogeneous binary relations (Coreflexive, [Left|Right|] quasi-reflexive, Antitransitive, Co-transitive, Quasitransitive, Transitivity of incomparability, [Left|Right|] Euclidean, Set-like)
Add more examples, e.g. from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Correspondence_(mathematics)&oldid=1010046066 (I didn't check if there are useful ones). To my experience, family relations is a good example domain for non-methematicians.
I'd suggest tothe order Relation_(mathematics)#Definition, Relation_(mathematics)#Properties (concerns homogeneous binary relations), Relation_(mathematics)#Special types of binary relations (concerns all binary relations), Relation_(mathematics)#Operations on binary relations (concerns all binary relations), Relation_(mathematics)#Operations (concerns homogeneous binary relations), without any particular "Examples" section - plenty of examples (from different application areas) should be given in each of the previous sections, instead.

Pinging the participants from Talk:Binary_relation#Merge_with_Heterogeneous_relation: @Rgdboer, D.Lazard, and TakuyaMurata: - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: I also noticed that finitary relations and ternary relations aren't mentioned anywhere in this article. Should these topics be described in this article as well? Jarble (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: I'd suggest to mention them briefly under "Generalizations". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you reminded me to this article, I started to implement the above suggestions, with the most easy task, viz. the deletions (item 3). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we find an issue in this article, should we make a fix to both it and the Binary_relation? Or focus improvements on one? Davidvandebunte (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidvandebunte: If the fix is in a text that is about some advanced issue, it would be sufficient to apply it in Binary relation. If it is clearly introductory, please apply it in both articles. If in doubt, I suggest you apply it in Binary relation, and mark the corresponding text here (Relation (mathematics) as {{dubious}}, or something similar. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure disguising the properties of binary relations as properties of relations in general works. I was having a hard time trying to read that section with the generalization to _finitary_ relations in mind. I think it would be better to restrict that section to actual properties of _generalized_ relations or omit it entirely. 193.157.230.202 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is intended for beginners. If you are concerned about finitary relations, you'd better read binary relation, homogeneous relation, or, most adequately, finitary relation. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't concerned for myself as much as for the general reader. the article poses as an introduction to relations in general but goes then on to list properties binary relations may have as if any relation might have them, which can be misleading. 193.157.143.148 (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The different notions are distinguished in [note 1]. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I found the introduction fairly transparent about the distinction. the other sections, however, are essentially a transcription of the article on binary relations, aren't they? perhaps it would be enough to add a few "binary" attributes or point to [note 1] in a few more places. 193.157.143.148 (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article originated as a split-off from binary relation, see the beginning of this talk section. I started with a copy, then tried to simplify to achieve a beginners-level article. My feeling is that for the lead I arrived at that goal, but for the rest I'm still not sure how to proceed (apart from looking for more examples). Your above remark seems to confirm my impression. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial relation[edit]

the paragraph title introducing the definition of a serial relation points to an article stating that serial relations are homogeneous relations with such and such property. however, the note says that the definition can actually be generalized to heterogeneous relations, too, which does seem intuitive from the example given. there seems to be some kind of contradiction. are there any experts there who can clarify this? 193.157.230.202 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, where's the article about general relations?[edit]

Relations in mathematics refer to n-ary tuples over heterogeneous domains. If the topic of this article covers only binary homogeneous relations, mentioning other types only in passing at the Generalizations section, where is the description of the most general definition?

The current article misguides readers into thinking that all relations are binary. Diego (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question - in the conversation above I've found that Finitary relation was initially placed at this page, and it's the topic I'm talking about. I've added it to the disambiguation hat note. Diego (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the first image[edit]

Please add arrow diagram for first image. Yuthfghds (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbaki relations[edit]

Nicholas Bourbaki used the term relation for a well-formed formula in his description of formal mathematics in The Elements of Mathematics – Theory of Sets as described at Talk:Well-formed formula#Bourbaki formulas. A relation is referred to as a property twice on page 348. The order of development, functions before products of sets, seen in Summary of Results (page 351) is contrary to the developments which starts with a product of sets, defines a relation as a subset of it, and finally a function as a type of relation. Rgdboer (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be mentioned. However, it doesn't fit in this beginner-lever article. A better place is binary relation or, more generally, finitary relation. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]