Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider a binary relation $\mathsf{R}$ such that $x\mathsf{R}y$ is the case only if there is some $z$ such that both $x\mathsf{R}z$ and $y\mathsf{R}z$ are the case. Is there a well-known name for the property enjoyed by this relation? And are there natural examples in mathematics (or in ARS) of relations characterized by this property?

In normal modal logic, the above property characterizes frames axiomatized by the schema $\lozenge\square\alpha\to\lozenge\alpha$ (or, dually, by $\square\alpha\to\square\lozenge\alpha$). It amounts to a stronger version of the Church-Rosser property, according to which $x\mathsf{R}y$ and $y\mathsf{R}x$ are simultaneously the case only if there is a $z$ such that both $x\mathsf{R}z$ and $y\mathsf{R}z$ are the case. I have however been unable to determine so far whether there is an established name for the above mentioned property in the literature.

(This is cross-posted with TCS.SE, where the question received a couple of comments but no answers were posted in the first few days.)

share|improve this question
    
If you had "if and only if" in the definition instead of just "only if" then you could call such a relation a symmetric idempotent (with respect to relational composition). But as it stands I can't immediately think of a suitable name. –  Dave Wilding Jan 21 at 18:52
    
can you add all relations ( is it transitive and or serial) maybe the combination of relations has a name, as afar as i can see refexive includes yor relation and it is a bit a combination of serial and connective , in G' notation it is an G(0,1,1,1) but this one doesn't has a name –  Willemien Jan 27 at 14:41
    
@Willemien Indeed, from the comments I received so far it seems that the axiom G(0,1,1,1) ---or, equivalently, G(1,1,0,1)--- has not been baptized, or even studied for its own sake. It does seem to correspond, anyway, to a qualified version of the notion of joinability, in ARS, where one demands $x\mathsf{R}y$ as a necessary condition for $x\downarrow y$. –  J Marcos Jan 28 at 14:17
    
Abstract rewriting is a different logic branch, (I think it belongs to combinatory logic or Lamda calculus, branches I am not familiar with. I am not sure if it is possible to put Abstract rewriting in a one-to-one relation with modal logc, I can only advice you to be very careful here, take nothing for obvious. (the arrow with star looks very transitive but then is []p -> [][]p an axiom? The same for []p -> p (reflexivity) is it vacously true or false? and most important: Is |-p => |-[]p (rule of nesecitation, needed for normal modal logics) valid? all questions I don't know the answer. –  Willemien Jan 28 at 15:06

1 Answer 1

Had a look around and Hughes "introduction to model logic" and Boolos" The logic of provability" call it CONVERGENT, athough Hughes only calls <>[]p -> []<>p convergent Boolos is more flexibel: see Boolos page 88

share|improve this answer
    
In the study of abstract rewriting systems, such diamond property is a particular case of the notion of confluence. You get convergence if you add termination to confluence. –  J Marcos Jan 28 at 14:01

Your Answer

 
discard

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.