Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The empty set is an $n$-ary relation for every $n$, right?

How should we call a pair $(n;r)$ consisting of some number $n$ and an $n$-ary relation $r$?

To specify $n$ is necessary only when $r$ is empty, but because there are no reason for $r$ not to be empty, I need to specify $n$ explicitly.

Any term describing this situation?

share|cite|improve this question
I've found the terms "figure" and "ground" in but Wikipedia here seems to use a non-standard terminology. – porton Mar 26 '12 at 19:49
The empty set is a relation if and only if your definition of a relation is one that the empty set satisfies vacuously. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '12 at 20:17

I don't believe that there is any common terminology for what you are asking about, but you should be careful.

Using the common recursive/inductive definition of $n$-tuples, where $$\langle a_0 , \ldots , a_{n-1} , a_n \rangle = \langle \langle a_0 , \ldots , a_{n-1} \rangle , a_n \rangle,$$ it follows that an $n$-tuple is also an $m$-tuple for all $m \leq n$. Therefore an $n$-ary relation is techincally also an $m$-ary relation for all $m \leq n$. (Differences may arise when talking about $n$-ary relations on a specific set $X$, but even here there might be ambiguity.)

Added due to comments below: Ignore the second paragraph.

share|cite|improve this answer
I define an $n$-tuple as a function of $n$ arguments, not inductively as you do, in order to match with my other definitions. There are no inherent trouble here, my question is purely terminological. – porton Mar 26 '12 at 20:05
@porton: How do you define functions, then? – arjafi Mar 26 '12 at 20:06
A function is a monovalued binary relation. If I describe it strictly, a binary relation is not a relation, because an ordered pair is (supposedly) not a tuple. Here there are some silliness dependent on a branch of math or CS, I know no way to define it in a non-silly way, every common way has it advantages and disadvantages. – porton Mar 26 '12 at 20:10
@Arthur: This MO question might be interesting to your question. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '12 at 20:16
@porton: I just wanted to know where your starting point was, to make certain that there was no circularity. – arjafi Mar 26 '12 at 20:26

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.