Binary relation

This article may require cleanup to meet

Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific
Learn more

In mathematics, a binary relation

between two sets A and B is a set of
ordered pairs (a, b) consisting of
elements a of A and elements b of B; in
short, it is a subset of the Cartesian
product A × B. It encodes the information
of relation: an element a is related to an
element b if and only if the pair (a, b)
belongs to the set.
An example is the "divides" relation
between the set of prime numbers P and
the set of integers Z, in which each prime
p is related to each integer z that is a
multiple of p, but not to an integer that is
not a multiple of p. In this relation, for
instance, the prime 2 is related to
numbers that include −4, 0, 6, 10, but not
1 or 9; and the prime 3 is related to
numbers that include 0, 6, and 9, but not
4 or 13.

Binary relations are used in many

branches of mathematics to model
concepts like "is greater than", "is equal
to", and "divides" in arithmetic, "is
congruent to" in geometry, "is adjacent
to" in graph theory, "is orthogonal to" in
linear algebra and many more. A function
may be defined as a special kind of
binary relation. Binary relations are also
heavily used in computer science.

A binary relation is the special case n = 2

⊆ …
of an n-ary relation R   A1 ×   × An, that
is, a set of n-tuples where the jth
component of each n-tuple is taken from
the jth domain Aj of the relation. An
example for a ternary relation on Z×Z×Z
is " … lies between … and …", containing
e.g. the triples (5,2,8), (5,8,2), and
(−4,9,−7).

A binary relation on A × B is an element in

the power set on A × B. Since the latter
 ⊂
set is ordered by inclusion ( ), each
relation has a place in the lattice of
subsets of A × B. A binary relation
between the same set is also called a
homogeneous relation (and a binary
relation is sometimes called a
heterogeneous relation to emphasize the
fact it is not necessarily homogeneous).
An example of a homogeneous relation
is a kinship where the relations are
between people. Homogeneous relation
may be viewed as directed graphs, and in
the symmetric case as ordinary graphs.
Homogeneous relations also encompass
orderings as well as partitions of a set
(called equivalence relations).
As part of set theory, relations are
manipulated with the algebra of sets,
including complementation. Furthermore,
the two sets are considered
symmetrically by introduction of the
converse relation which exchanges their
places. Another operation is composition
of relations. Altogether these tools form
the calculus of relations, for which there
are textbooks by Ernst Schröder,
Clarence Lewis, and Gunther Schmidt. A
deeper analysis of relations involves
decomposing them into subsets called
concepts and placing them in a complete
lattice.
In some systems of axiomatic set theory,
relations are extended to classes, which
are generalizations of sets. This
extension is needed for, among other
things, modeling the concepts of "is an
element of" or "is a subset of" in set
theory, without running into logical
inconsistencies such as Russell's
paradox.

The terms correspondence, dyadic

relation and 2-place relation are
synonyms for binary relation. But some
authors use the term “binary relation” for
any subset of a Cartesian product A × B
without the reference to A, B while the
term “correspondence” is reserved for a
binary relation with the reference to A, B.

Definition
Given a pair of sets X, Y, there is the set
called the Cartesian product
,
whose elements are called ordered pairs.

A binary relation R from X to Y is a

subset of ; that is, it is a set of
ordered pairs consisting of
elements and .[1][note 1] The
set is called the set of departure and
the set Y, the set of destination or
codomain. A binary relation is also called
a correspondence.[2] (In order to specify
the choices of the sets , some
authors define a binary relation or a
correspondence as an ordered triple
where is a subset of
.)

When , a binary relation is called

a homogeneous relation. To emphasize
the fact are allowed to be different,
a binary relation is also called a
heterogeneous relation.[3][4][5]

The statement is read "x is

R-related to y", and is denoted by xRy.

The order of the elements in each pair of

R is important: if a ≠ b, then aRb and bRa
can be true or false, independently of
each other. Resuming the example in the
lead, the prime 3 divides the integer 9,
but 9 doesn't divide 3.

The domain of R is the set of all x such

that xRy for at least one y. The range or
image of R is the set of all y such that
xRy for at least one x. The field of R is the
union of its domain and its range.[6][7][8]

A binary relation is also called a

multivalued function; in fact, a (single-
valued) function is nothing but a binary
relation such that
.

Example
2nd example relation
ball car doll cup

John + − − −

Mary − − + −

Venus − + − −

1st example relation

ball car doll cup

John + − − −

Mary − − + −

Ian − − − −

Venus − + − −

The following example shows a choice of

codomain matters (and thus is a part of
a definition of a relation).

Suppose there are four objects A = {ball,

car, doll, cup} and four persons B = {John,
Mary, Ian, Venus}. A possible example of
"is owned by" is:

R = { (ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car,

Venus) }.
That is, John owns the ball, Mary owns
the doll, and Venus owns the car. Nobody
owns the cup and Ian owns nothing.

Now, as a set, R involves no Ian; hence, R

could have been viewed as a subset of A
× {John, Mary, Venus}. But that will
encode different information; namely, it
does not tell anything about ownership of
Ian.

Special types of binary

relations
Example relations between real numbers.
 y = x2.
 
 y = 2x + 20.
 

Some important types of binary relations

R between two sets X and Y are listed
below.

Uniqueness properties:

Injective (also called left-unique[9]): for

all x and z in X and y in Y it holds that if
xRy and zRy then x = z. For example,
the green relation in the diagram is
injective, but the red relation is not, as
it relates e.g. both x = −5 and z = +5 to
y = 25.
Functional (also called right-unique[9],
right-definite[10] or univalent[11]): for all
x in X, and y and z in Y it holds that if
xRy and xRz then y = z; such a binary
relation is called a partial function.
Both relations in the picture are
functional. An example for a non-
functional relation can be obtained by
rotating the red graph clockwise by 90
degrees, i.e. by considering the relation
x = y2 which relates e.g. x = 25 to both
y = −5 and z = +5.
 One-to-one (also written 1-to-1):
injective and functional. The green
relation is one-to-one, but the red is
not.

Totality properties (only definable if the

sets of departure X resp. destination Y
are specified):

Left-total:[9] for all x in X there exists a

y in Y such that xRy. For example, R is
left-total when it is a function or a
multivalued function. Note that this
property, although sometimes also
referred to as total, is different from
the definition of total in the next
section. Both relations in the picture
are left-total. The relation x = y2,
 obtained from the above rotation, is
not left-total, as it doesn't relate, e.g., x
= −14 to any real number y.
Surjective (also called right-total[9] or
onto): for all y in Y there exists an x in X
such that xRy. The green relation is
surjective, but the red relation is not, as
it doesn't relate any real number x to
e.g. y = −14.

Uniqueness and totality properties:

A function: a relation that is functional

and left-total. Both the green and the
red relation are functions.
An injective function or injection: a
relation that is injective, functional, and
left-total.
 A surjective function or surjection: a
relation that is functional, left-total, and
right-total.
A bijection: a surjective one-to-one or
surjective injective function is said to
be bijective, also known as one-to-one
correspondence.[12] The green relation
is bijective, but the red is not.

Operations on binary
relations
If R, S are binary relations over X and Y,
then each of the following is a binary
relation over X and Y:

Union: R ∪ S ⊆ X × Y, defined as R ∪ S
= { (x, y) | (x, y) ∈ R or (x, y) ∈ S }. The
 identity element is the empty relation.
For example, ≥ is the union of > and =.
Intersection: R ∩ S ⊆ X × Y, defined as
R ∩ S = { (x, y) | (x, y) ∈ R and (x, y) ∈
S }. The identity element is the
universal relation.

If R is a binary relation over X and Y, and

S is a binary relation over Y and Z, then
the following is a binary relation over X
and Z: (see main article composition of
relations)

Composition: S ∘ R, also denoted R ; S

(or R ∘ S), defined as S ∘ R = { (x, z) |
there exists y ∈ Y, such that (x, y) ∈ R
and (y, z) ∈ S }. The identity element is
the identity relation. The order of R and
 S in the notation S ∘ R, used here
agrees with the standard notational
order for composition of functions. For
example, the composition "is mother
of" ∘ "is parent of" yields "is maternal
grandparent of", while the composition
"is parent of" ∘ "is mother of" yields "is
grandmother of".

A relation R on sets X and Y is said to be

contained in a relation S on X and Y if R
is a subset of S, that is, if x R y always
implies x S y. In this case, if R and S
disagree, R is also said to be smaller
than S. For example, > is contained in ≥.

If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then

the following is a binary relation over Y
and X:

Converse: RT, defined as RT = { (y, x) | 

(x, y) ∈ R }. A binary relation over a set
is equal to its converse if and only if it
is symmetric. See also duality (order
theory). For example, "is less than" (<)
is the converse of "is greater than" (>).

If R is a binary relation over X, then each

of the following is a binary relation over
X:

Reflexive closure: R=, defined as R= = { 

(x, x) | x ∈ X } ∪ R or the smallest
reflexive relation over X containing R.
This can be proven to be equal to the
intersection of all reflexive relations
containing R.
Reflexive reduction: R≠, defined as R≠ =
R \ { (x, x) | x ∈ X } or the largest
irreflexive relation over X contained in
R.
Transitive closure: R+, defined as the
smallest transitive relation over X
containing R. This can be seen to be
equal to the intersection of all
transitive relations containing R.
Reflexive transitive closure: R*,
defined as R* = (R+)=, the smallest
preorder containing R.
Reflexive transitive symmetric
closure: R≡, defined as the smallest
 equivalence relation over X containing
R.

Complement

If R is a binary relation in X × Y, then it

has a complementary relation S defined
as:

An overline or bar is used to indicate the

complementary relation:
Alternatively, a strikethrough is used to
denote complements, for example, = and
≠ are complementary to each other, as
are ∈ and ∉, and ⊇ and ⊉. Some
authors even use and . In total
orderings < and ≥ are complements, as
are > and ≤.

The complement of the converse relation

RT is the converse of the complement:

If X = Y, the complement has the

following properties:

If a relation is symmetric, the

complement is too.
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
The restriction of a binary relation on a
set X to a subset S is the set of all pairs
(x, y) in the relation for which x and y are
in S.

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, its restrictions are too.

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 doesn't
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, on the set of
real numbers a property of the relation
"≤" is that every non-empty subset S of R
with an upper bound in R has a least
upper bound (also called supremum) in
R. However, for a set of rational numbers
this supremum is not necessarily
rational, so the same property does not
hold on the restriction of the relation "≤"
to the set of rational numbers.

The left-restriction (right-restriction,

respectively) of a binary relation between
X and Y to a subset S of its domain
(codomain) is the set of all pairs (x, y) in
the relation for which x (y) is an element
of S.

Matrix representation

Binary relations between X and Y can be

represented algebraically by matrices
indexed by X and Y with entries in the
Boolean semiring (addition corresponds
to OR and multiplication to AND), matrix
addition corresponds to union of
relations, matrix multiplication
corresponds to composition of relations
(of a relation between X and Y and a
relation between Y and Z),[13] 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. If X equals Y, then the
endorelations form a matrix semiring
(indeed, a matrix semialgebra over the
Boolean semiring), and the identity
matrix corresponds to the identity
relation.[14]
Sets versus classes
Certain mathematical "relations", such as
"equal to", "member of", and "subset 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, if we
try to model the general concept of
"equality" as a binary relation =, we must
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 ⊆ 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 ⊆ . Also, the
A
"member of" relation needs to be
restricted to have domain A and
codomain P(A) to obtain a binary relation
∈ A that is a set. Bertrand Russell has
shown that assuming ∈ to be defined on
all sets leads to a contradiction in naive
set theory.

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 function
with its graph in this context.)[15] With
this definition one can for instance define
a function relation between every set and
its power set.

Homogeneous relation
A homogeneous relation on a set X is a
binary relation between a set and itself;
i.e. it is a subset of a Cartesian product
.[5][16][17] It is also called a binary
relation over X or an endorelation over
X.[16] Some types of endorelations are
widely studied in graph theory, where
they are known as simple directed
graphs permitting loops.

A homogeneous relation on a set X may

be identified with a directed graph, where
X is the set of (possibly infinitely many)
vertices and there is an edge from a
vertex x to a vertex y if and only if x is
related to y.

The set of all binary relations Rel(X) on a

set X is the set 2X × X which is a Boolean
algebra augmented with the involution of
mapping of a relation to its converse
relation. For the theoretical explanation
see Category of relations.

Particular homogeneous
relations

Some important particular binary

relations on a given set X are:

the empty relation E = ∅ ⊆ X×X,

 the universal relation U = X×X, and
∈
the identity relation I = { (x,x) : x X }.

For arbitrary elements x, y of X,

xEy holds never,

xUy holds always, and
xIy holds if, and only if, x = y.

Properties

Some important properties that a binary

relation R over a set X may have are:

Reflexive: for all x in X it holds that

xRx. For example, "greater than or
equal to" (≥) is a reflexive relation but
"greater than" (>) is not.
Irreflexive (or strict): for all x in X it
holds that not xRx. For example, > is an
irreflexive relation, but ≥ is not.
Coreflexive relation: for all x and y in X
it holds that if xRy then x = y.[18] An
example of a coreflexive relation is the
relation on integers in which each odd
number is related to itself and there
are no other relations. The equality
relation is the only example of a both
reflexive and coreflexive relation, and
any coreflexive relation is a subset of
the identity relation.
Quasi-reflexive: for all x, y in X, if xRy,
then xRx and yRy.
The previous 4 alternatives are far from
being exhaustive; e.g. the red relation y =
x2 from the above picture is neither
irreflexive, nor coreflexive, nor reflexive,
since it contains the pair (0,0), and (2,4),
but not (2,2), respectively. The latter two
facts also rule out quasi-reflexivity.

Symmetric: for all x and y in X it holds

that if xRy then yRx. "Is a blood relative
of" is a symmetric relation, because x
is a blood relative of y if and only if y is
a blood relative of x.
Antisymmetric: for all x and y in X, if
xRy and yRx then x = y. For example, ≥
is anti-symmetric; so is >, but
 vacuously (the condition in the
definition is always false).[19]
Asymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy
then not yRx. A relation is asymmetric
if and only if it is both anti-symmetric
and irreflexive.[20] For example, > is
asymmetric, but ≥ is not.

Again, the previous 3 alternatives are far

from being exhaustive; as an example on
the natural numbers, the relation xRy
defined by x>2 is neither symmetric nor
antisymmetric, let alone asymmetric.

Transitive: for all x, y and z in X it holds

that if xRy and yRz then xRz. For
example, "is ancestor of" is transitive,
while "is parent of" is not. A transitive
relation is irreflexive if and only if it is
asymmetric.[21]
Connex: for all x and y in X it holds that
xRy or yRx (or both). This property is
sometimes called "total", which is
distinct from the definitions of "total"
given in the previous section.
Trichotomous: for all x and y in X
exactly one of xRy, yRx or x = y holds.
For example, > is a trichotomous
relation, while the relation "divides" on
natural numbers is not.[22]
Right Euclidean (or just Euclidean): for
all x, y and z in X, if xRy and xRz, then
yRz. For example, equality is a
Euclidean relation because if x = y and
x = z, then y = z.
Left Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X, if
yRx and zRx, then yRz.
Serial: for all x in X, there exists y in X
such that xRy. "Is greater than" is a
serial relation on the integers. But it is
not a serial relation on the positive
integers, because there is no y in the
positive integers such that 1>y.[23]
However, "is less than" is a serial
relation on the positive integers, the
rational numbers and the real
numbers. Every reflexive relation is
serial: for a given x, choose y = x.
Set-like (or local): for every x in X, the
class of all y such that yRx is a set.
(This makes sense only if relations on
proper classes are allowed.) The usual
ordering < on the class of ordinal
numbers is set-like, while its inverse >
is not.
Well-founded: every nonempty subset
S of X contains a minimal element with
respect to R. Well-foundedness implies
the descending chain condition (that
is, no infinite chain … xn R … R x3 R x2 R
x1 can exist). If the axiom of
dependent choice is assumed, both
conditions are equivalent.[24][25]
An equivalence relationis a relation that is
reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. It is
also a relation that is symmetric,
transitive, and serial, since these
properties imply reflexivity. A partial
equivalence relation is a relation that is
only symmetric and transitive (without
necessarily being reflexive).

A partial order is a relation that is

reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive. A
total order, also called simple order, linear
order, or chain is a partial order that is a
connex relation.[26] A well-order is linear
order where every nonempty subset has
a least element.
 Binary endorelations by property
Reflexivity Symmetry Transitivity Symbol Example

Directed graph →
Undirected graph Irreflexive Symmetric

Tournament Irreflexive Antisymmetric Pecking order

Dependency Reflexive Symmetric

Strict weak order Irreflexive Antisymmetric Yes <

Total preorder Reflexive Yes ≤

Preorder Reflexive Yes ≤ Preference

Partial order Reflexive Antisymmetric Yes ≤ Subset

Partial equivalence Symmetric Yes

Equivalence ∼, ≅, ≈,
relation
Reflexive Symmetric Yes
≡ Equality

Proper
Strict partial order Irreflexive Antisymmetric Yes <
subset

The number of homogeneous

relations

The number of distinct binary relations

n2
on an n-element set is 2 (sequence
A002416 in the OEIS):
Number of n-element binary relations of different types
Elem‐ Partial Total Total Equival
Any Transitive Reflexive Preorder
ents order preorder order rel

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

2 16 13 4 4 3 3 2

3 512 171 64 29 19 13 6

4 65,536 3,994 4,096 355 219 75 24

2 2 n n
n 2n 2n −n
∑k=0 k! S(n, k)
  n! ∑k=0 S(
 

OEIS A002416 A006905 A053763 A000798 A001035 A000670 A000142 A00

Notes:

The number of irreflexive relations is

the same as that of reflexive relations.
The number of strict partial orders
(irreflexive transitive relations) is the
same as that of partial orders.
The number of strict weak orders is the
same as that of total preorders.
The total orders are the partial orders
that are also total preorders. The
 number of preorders that are neither a
partial order nor a total preorder is,
therefore, the number of preorders,
minus the number of partial orders,
minus the number of total preorders,
plus the number of total orders: 0, 0, 0,
3, and 85, respectively.
The number of equivalence relations is
the number of partitions, which is the
Bell number.

The binary relations can be grouped into

pairs (relation, complement), except that
for n = 0 the relation is its own
complement. The non-symmetric ones
can be grouped into quadruples (relation,
complement, inverse, inverse
complement).

Examples of common
homogeneous relations

Order relations, including strict orders:

Greater than
Greater than or equal to
Less than
Less than or equal to
Divides (evenly)
Subset of
Equivalence relations:
Equality
Parallel with (for affine spaces)
 Is in bijection with
Isomorphic
Tolerance relation, a reflexive and
symmetric relation:
Dependency relation, a finite
tolerance relation
Independency relation, the
complement of some dependency
relation
Kinship relations

Other uses of
correspondence
In algebraic geometry, a
correspondence is a binary relation or
correspondence that is defined by a
system of algebraic equations.
In category theory, a correspondence
from to is a functor
. It is the "opposite"
of a profunctor.
In von Neumann algebra theory, a
correspondence is a synonym for a
von Neumann algebra bimodule.
In economics, a correspondence
between two sets and is a map
from the elements of
the set to the power set of .[27]
This is a binary relation relating
with every element of f(x). Usually,
there is the additional property that for
all a in A, f(a) is not empty. In other
words, each element in A maps to a
non-empty subset of B; or in terms of a
relation R as subset of A×B, R projects
to A surjectively. A correspondence
with this additional property is
generally thought of as the
generalization of a function, rather
than as a special case of a relation,
which is referred to in other contexts
as a multivalued function.
An example of a correspondence in
this sense is the best response
correspondence in game theory, which
gives the optimal action for a player as
a function of the strategies of all other
players. If there is always a unique
 best action given what the other
players are doing, then this is a
function. If for some opponent's
strategy, there is a set of best
responses that are equally good, then
this is a correspondence.

See also
Abstract rewriting system
Additive relation
Confluence (term rewriting)
Correspondence (algebraic geometry)
Hasse diagram
Incidence structure
Logic of relatives
Order theory
 Triadic relation

Notes
1. the set R is also sometimes called
the graph of the relation R.
1. Enderton 1977, Ch 3. pg. 40
2. Jacobson, Nathan (2009), Basic
Algebra II (2nd ed.) § 2.1.
3. Schmidt, Gunther; Ströhlein, Thomas
(2012). Relations and Graphs:
Discrete Mathematics for Computer
Scientists . Definition 4.1.1.: Springer
Science & Business Media.
ISBN 978-3-642-77968-8.
4. Christodoulos A. Floudas; Panos M.
Pardalos (2008). Encyclopedia of
Optimization (2nd ed.). Springer
Science & Business Media. pp. 299–
300. ISBN 978-0-387-74758-3.
5. Michael Winter (2007). Goguen
Categories: A Categorical Approach
to L-fuzzy Relations. Springer. pp. x–
xi. ISBN 978-1-4020-6164-6.
6. Suppes, Patrick (1972) [originally
published by D. van Nostrand
Company in 1960]. Axiomatic Set
Theory. Dover. ISBN 0-486-61630-4.
7. Smullyan, Raymond M.; Fitting,
Melvin (2010) [revised and corrected
republication of the work originally
published in 1996 by Oxford
University Press, New York]. Set
Theory and the Continuum Problem.
Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-47484-7.
8. Levy, Azriel (2002) [republication of
the work published by Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New
York in 1979]. Basic Set Theory.
Dover. ISBN 0-486-42079-5.
9. Kilp, Knauer and Mikhalev: p. 3. The
same four definitions appear in the
following:
Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath
(2001). Mathematical
Foundations of Computational
Engineering: A Handbook.
Springer Science & Business
Media. p. 506. ISBN 978-3-540-
67995-0.
Eike Best (1996). Semantics of
Sequential and Parallel
Programs. Prentice Hall.
pp. 19–21. ISBN 978-0-13-
460643-9.
 Robert-Christoph Riemann
(1999). Modelling of Concurrent
Systems: Structural and
Semantical Methods in the High
Level Petri Net Calculus. Herbert
Utz Verlag. pp. 21–22.
ISBN 978-3-89675-629-9.
10. Mäs, Stephan (2007), "Reasoning on
Spatial Semantic Integrity
Constraints", Spatial Information
Theory: 8th International Conference,
COSIT 2007, Melbourne, Australia,
September 19–23, 2007,
Proceedings, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 4736, Springer,
pp. 285–302, doi:10.1007/978-3-
540-74788-8_18
11. Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational
Mathematics. Cambridge University
Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7,
Chapt. 5
12. Note that the use of
"correspondence" here is narrower
than as general synonym for binary
relation.
13. John C. Baez (6 Nov 2001).
"quantum mechanics over a
commutative rig" .
Newsgroup: sci.physics.research .
Usenet: [email protected]
h.edu . Retrieved November 25,
2018.
14. Droste, M., & Kuich, W. (2009).
Semirings and Formal Power Series.
Handbook of Weighted Automata,
3–28. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01492-
5_1 , pp. 7-10
15. Tarski, Alfred; Givant, Steven (1987).
A formalization of set theory without
variables. American Mathematical
Society. p. 3. ISBN 0-8218-1041-3.
16. M. E. Müller (2012). Relational
Knowledge Discovery. Cambridge
University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-
521-19021-3.
17. Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath
(2001). Mathematical Foundations
of Computational Engineering: A
Handbook. Springer Science &
Business Media. p. 496. ISBN 978-3-
540-67995-0.
18. Fonseca de Oliveira, J. N., & Pereira
Cunha Rodrigues, C. D. J. (2004).
Transposing Relations: From Maybe
Functions to Hash Tables . In
Mathematics of Program
Construction (p. 337).
19. Smith, Douglas; Eggen, Maurice; St.
Andre, Richard (2006), A Transition
to Advanced Mathematics (6th ed.),
Brooks/Cole, p. 160, ISBN 0-534-
39900-2
20. Nievergelt, Yves (2002), Foundations
of Logic and Mathematics:
Applications to Computer Science
and Cryptography, Springer-Verlag,
p. 158 .
21. Flaška, V.; Ježek, J.; Kepka, T.;
Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive
Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF).
Prague: School of Mathematics –
Physics Charles University. p. 1.
Archived from the original (PDF) on
2013-11-02. Lemma 1.1 (iv). This
source refers to asymmetric
relations as "strictly antisymmetric".
22. Since neither 5 divides 3, nor 3
divides 5, nor 3=5.
23. Yao, Y.Y.; Wong, S.K.M. (1995).
"Generalization of rough sets using
relationships between attribute
values" (PDF). Proceedings of the
2nd Annual Joint Conference on
Information Sciences: 30–33..
24. "Condition for Well-Foundedness" .
ProofWiki. Retrieved 20 February
2019.
25. Fraisse, R. (15 December 2000).
Theory of Relations, Volume 145 -
1st Edition (1st ed.). Elsevier. p. 46.
ISBN 9780444505422. Retrieved
20 February 2019.
26. Joseph G. Rosenstein, Linear
orderings, Academic Press, 1982,
ISBN 0-12-597680-1, p. 4
27. Mas-Colell, Andreu; Whinston,
Michael D.; Green, Jerry R. (1995).
Microeconomic Analysis . New York:
Oxford University Press. pp. 949–
951. ISBN 0-19-507340-1.

References
Enderton, Herbert (1977), Elements of
set theory, Boston, MA: Academic
Press, ISBN 978-0-12-238440-0.
M. Kilp, U. Knauer, A.V. Mikhalev (2000)
Monoids, Acts and Categories: with
Applications to Wreath Products and
Graphs, De Gruyter Expositions in
 Mathematics vol. 29, Walter de Gruyter,
ISBN 3-11-015248-7.
Charles Saunders Pierce (1870)
Description of a Notation for the Logic
of Relatives from Google Books
Gunther Schmidt (2010) Relational
Mathematics Cambridge University
Press ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.

External links
Media related to Binary relations at
Wikimedia Commons
Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001) [1994],
"Binary relation" , Encyclopedia of
Mathematics, Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. / Kluwer
 Academic Publishers, ISBN 978-1-
55608-010-4

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Binary_relation&oldid=892302657"

Last edited 21 days ago by Maggy…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.