Infimum and Supremum (of sets) - Formal Concept Analysis
$begingroup$
I am taking a course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I have an uncertainty about the definition of supremum (least comum superconcept) and infimum (greatest comum subconcept) of formal concepts:
$(A_1,B_1)wedge(A_2,B_2)=(A_1cap A_2,(B_1cup B_2)'')$
and
$(A_1,B_1)vee(A_2,B_2)=((A_1cup A_2)'',B_1cap B_2)$
Why get we the double prime (double quote)?
The professor of the lecture has said
"because intents must be closed, we take the closure".
However, the first case is about extent, or does not...? I'm a little confused...
And we have to have both extent and intent closure, right?
Why just the unions have the closures? Maybe intersections of closed sets are closed, but unions not always...? Could any explication here...?
Doing exercises I feel the necessity of the closures to unions, but cannot draw yet a formal proof.
I'm with difficult in researching about this because almost all the results are about closed and open sets (topology), what are a little less general that this theory of the course that I'm taking.
Remembering that as I say 'the set $A$ is closed' I mean $A=A''$.
Thanks very much.
EDIT
I tried again and I guess now I could understand... The intersections
of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the
set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a
closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it
we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's
enough... What do you think?
PS.: Someone know how do we read $wedge$ and $vee$ in portuguese?
computer-science formal-languages formal-systems translation-request galois-connections
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am taking a course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I have an uncertainty about the definition of supremum (least comum superconcept) and infimum (greatest comum subconcept) of formal concepts:
$(A_1,B_1)wedge(A_2,B_2)=(A_1cap A_2,(B_1cup B_2)'')$
and
$(A_1,B_1)vee(A_2,B_2)=((A_1cup A_2)'',B_1cap B_2)$
Why get we the double prime (double quote)?
The professor of the lecture has said
"because intents must be closed, we take the closure".
However, the first case is about extent, or does not...? I'm a little confused...
And we have to have both extent and intent closure, right?
Why just the unions have the closures? Maybe intersections of closed sets are closed, but unions not always...? Could any explication here...?
Doing exercises I feel the necessity of the closures to unions, but cannot draw yet a formal proof.
I'm with difficult in researching about this because almost all the results are about closed and open sets (topology), what are a little less general that this theory of the course that I'm taking.
Remembering that as I say 'the set $A$ is closed' I mean $A=A''$.
Thanks very much.
EDIT
I tried again and I guess now I could understand... The intersections
of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the
set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a
closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it
we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's
enough... What do you think?
PS.: Someone know how do we read $wedge$ and $vee$ in portuguese?
computer-science formal-languages formal-systems translation-request galois-connections
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am taking a course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I have an uncertainty about the definition of supremum (least comum superconcept) and infimum (greatest comum subconcept) of formal concepts:
$(A_1,B_1)wedge(A_2,B_2)=(A_1cap A_2,(B_1cup B_2)'')$
and
$(A_1,B_1)vee(A_2,B_2)=((A_1cup A_2)'',B_1cap B_2)$
Why get we the double prime (double quote)?
The professor of the lecture has said
"because intents must be closed, we take the closure".
However, the first case is about extent, or does not...? I'm a little confused...
And we have to have both extent and intent closure, right?
Why just the unions have the closures? Maybe intersections of closed sets are closed, but unions not always...? Could any explication here...?
Doing exercises I feel the necessity of the closures to unions, but cannot draw yet a formal proof.
I'm with difficult in researching about this because almost all the results are about closed and open sets (topology), what are a little less general that this theory of the course that I'm taking.
Remembering that as I say 'the set $A$ is closed' I mean $A=A''$.
Thanks very much.
EDIT
I tried again and I guess now I could understand... The intersections
of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the
set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a
closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it
we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's
enough... What do you think?
PS.: Someone know how do we read $wedge$ and $vee$ in portuguese?
computer-science formal-languages formal-systems translation-request galois-connections
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
$endgroup$
I am taking a course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I have an uncertainty about the definition of supremum (least comum superconcept) and infimum (greatest comum subconcept) of formal concepts:
$(A_1,B_1)wedge(A_2,B_2)=(A_1cap A_2,(B_1cup B_2)'')$
and
$(A_1,B_1)vee(A_2,B_2)=((A_1cup A_2)'',B_1cap B_2)$
Why get we the double prime (double quote)?
The professor of the lecture has said
"because intents must be closed, we take the closure".
However, the first case is about extent, or does not...? I'm a little confused...
And we have to have both extent and intent closure, right?
Why just the unions have the closures? Maybe intersections of closed sets are closed, but unions not always...? Could any explication here...?
Doing exercises I feel the necessity of the closures to unions, but cannot draw yet a formal proof.
I'm with difficult in researching about this because almost all the results are about closed and open sets (topology), what are a little less general that this theory of the course that I'm taking.
Remembering that as I say 'the set $A$ is closed' I mean $A=A''$.
Thanks very much.
EDIT
I tried again and I guess now I could understand... The intersections
of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the
set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a
closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it
we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's
enough... What do you think?
PS.: Someone know how do we read $wedge$ and $vee$ in portuguese?
computer-science formal-languages formal-systems translation-request galois-connections
computer-science formal-languages formal-systems translation-request galois-connections
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
edited Dec 3 '18 at 15:59
Na'omi
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
asked Nov 29 '18 at 19:29
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
24511
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The intersections of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's enough. (Thanks my professor for give me the sure about this topic.)
If someone still can help me with the translates I've said, I'd be so pleased. Thanks.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019081%2finfimum-and-supremum-of-sets-formal-concept-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The intersections of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's enough. (Thanks my professor for give me the sure about this topic.)
If someone still can help me with the translates I've said, I'd be so pleased. Thanks.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intersections of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's enough. (Thanks my professor for give me the sure about this topic.)
If someone still can help me with the translates I've said, I'd be so pleased. Thanks.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intersections of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's enough. (Thanks my professor for give me the sure about this topic.)
If someone still can help me with the translates I've said, I'd be so pleased. Thanks.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
$endgroup$
The intersections of intensions (similar to extents) are always an intent. Really, the set of the intensions (similar to extents) in a formal context in a closure system. However, this is not true for the union. To prove it we can get contraexamples (and there are plenty of these). And it's enough. (Thanks my professor for give me the sure about this topic.)
If someone still can help me with the translates I've said, I'd be so pleased. Thanks.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
answered Dec 7 '18 at 12:14
Na'omiNa'omi
24511
24511
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019081%2finfimum-and-supremum-of-sets-formal-concept-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
