It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- All Categories 2.2K
- Applied Category Theory Course 353
- Applied Category Theory Seminar 4
- Exercises 149
- Discussion Groups 49
- How to Use MathJax 15
- Chat 480
- Azimuth Code Project 108
- News and Information 145
- Azimuth Blog 149
- Azimuth Forum 29
- Azimuth Project 189
- - Strategy 108
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 711
- - Latest Changes 701
- - - Action 14
- - - Biodiversity 8
- - - Books 2
- - - Carbon 9
- - - Computational methods 38
- - - Climate 53
- - - Earth science 23
- - - Ecology 43
- - - Energy 29
- - - Experiments 30
- - - Geoengineering 0
- - - Mathematical methods 69
- - - Meta 9
- - - Methodology 16
- - - Natural resources 7
- - - Oceans 4
- - - Organizations 34
- - - People 6
- - - Publishing 4
- - - Reports 3
- - - Software 21
- - - Statistical methods 2
- - - Sustainability 4
- - - Things to do 2
- - - Visualisation 1
- General 39

Options

## Comments

Struggle:In a feasibility relation, why the \( {\text{op}} \) in \( \Phi : X^{\text{op}} \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} ? \) I really struggled with this. So we have the requirements X, the resources Y and we ask which combinations of elements in X and Y are feasible. Why not \( \Phi : X \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} \) instead of \( \Phi : X^{\text{op}} \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} ? \)Resolution:Keep in mind that the feasibility relation \( \Phi \) is supposed to be amonotone function.Allright, let's make an example: Let \( X = \{ Bike, Car, Boat \} \) be a set of vehicles and \( Y = \{ 200$, 1.500$, 1.800$ \} \) a set of money that we have. The feasibility relation \( \Phi : X \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} \) looks like this:

We want the boat most, but unfortunately we will never be able to buy it. We can buy a car tho if we have 1.500$ or more, and we can buy a bike as soon as we have 1.500$ or more aswell. There are only bikes more expensive than 200$ around. So the feasibility relation Φ is the set { (Bike, 1.500$), (Bike, 1.800$), (Car, 1.500$), (Car, 1.800$) }.

Now we want to think about the feasibility relation as a monotone function between preorders. First in the naive way: \( \Phi : X \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} \)

Where is the problem? The problem is that there is \( x,x' \in X \) so that \( x \leq x' \) but not \( f(x) \leq f(x')! \) Take for example the pair (Car, 1.500$) and (Boat, 1.500$). \( (Car, 1.500$) \leq (Boat, 1.500$) \) but if we look at where they get mapped at by \( \phi \), we get \( true \leq false\). That is a contraditction to how a monotone function is defined!

When we take the opposite of X, things work out again:

Informally, because of \( X^{\text{op}} \times Y \), everytime we go 'up' or 'right' on the left side of the feasibilty relation, we also go 'up' or 'right' in the right side of the feasibility relation, which wasn't the case with \( X \times Y \).

`**Struggle:** In a feasibility relation, why the \\( {\text{op}} \\) in \\( \Phi : X^{\text{op}} \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} ? \\) I really struggled with this. So we have the requirements X, the resources Y and we ask which combinations of elements in X and Y are feasible. Why not \\( \Phi : X \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} \\) instead of \\( \Phi : X^{\text{op}} \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} ? \\) **Resolution:** Keep in mind that the feasibility relation \\( \Phi \\) is supposed to be a **monotone function**. Allright, let's make an example: Let \\( X = \\{ Bike, Car, Boat \\} \\) be a set of vehicles and \\( Y = \\{ 200$, 1.500$, 1.800$ \\} \\) a set of money that we have. The feasibility relation \\( \Phi : X \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} \\) looks like this: ![Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/6qn5veq.png) We want the boat most, but unfortunately we will never be able to buy it. We can buy a car tho if we have 1.500$ or more, and we can buy a bike as soon as we have 1.500$ or more aswell. There are only bikes more expensive than 200$ around. So the feasibility relation Φ is the set { (Bike, 1.500$), (Bike, 1.800$), (Car, 1.500$), (Car, 1.800$) }. Now we want to think about the feasibility relation as a monotone function between preorders. First in the naive way: \\( \Phi : X \times Y \to \mathbf{Bool} \\) ![Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/3b5qPOr.png) Where is the problem? The problem is that there is \\( x,x' \in X \\) so that \\( x \leq x' \\) but not \\( f(x) \leq f(x')! \\) Take for example the pair (Car, 1.500$) and (Boat, 1.500$). \\( (Car, 1.500$) \leq (Boat, 1.500$) \\) but if we look at where they get mapped at by \\( \phi \\), we get \\( true \leq false\\). That is a contraditction to how a monotone function is defined! When we take the opposite of X, things work out again: ![Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/cw7UqUq.png) Informally, because of \\( X^{\text{op}} \times Y \\), everytime we go 'up' or 'right' on the left side of the feasibilty relation, we also go 'up' or 'right' in the right side of the feasibility relation, which wasn't the case with \\( X \times Y \\).`