My book says:

A relation R from a non-empty set A to a non-empty set B is a subset of the cartesian product A × B. The subset is derived by describing a relationship between the first element and the second element of the ordered pairs in A × B.

The book says that relation R is a subset of A × B. But how could a relation be a set? In number 5 and 10 there is a relation that the later one is divisible by the fist one. But "division" can't be any "set" or can it be?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to Mathematics Stack Exchange. The relation can be identified with the set of ordered pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ divides $b$; for example, the set contains $(5,10)$ but not $(10,5)$ $\endgroup$ – J. W. Tanner Nov 1 '19 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ It is worth pointing out that functions are also sets. In fact, depending on your construction of set theory, everything can be a set including and certainly not limited to: operations such as $+$ and $\times$, numbers such as $1$ and $\pi$, graphs such as $K_4$, and relations such as $<$ and $\mid$ as in your question, etc... $\endgroup$ – JMoravitz Nov 1 '19 at 16:17

Abstractly, a relation $R$ can be described as a set of ordered pairs that satisfy the relation:

$R=\{(a,b): a\; R\; b\}\subset A\times B$.

For your example -- the relation "divides" -- we have $(5,10)\in R$ but $(10,5)\not\in R$, for instance.

(In this case we could say $A=B=\mathbb N$; $A\times B=\mathbb N^2$.)

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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