Yes, it is, and that is my question. What if instead of ordered pairs
it is sets. Is this concept well defined? I mean no one can use
cartesian product anymore to represent this staff. What is the
operation for this.
On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:01 PM, saurabh gupta wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org
you can always eliminate them
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Parisa wrote:
> Not indeed.
>
> Cartesian product produces tuples as the result, but I am interested in the
> set form of these tuples.
>
> if there are two sets like X={A,B,C} & Y={A,B}
>
> then The Cartesian product will be:
>
> X.Y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product
it is defined as a set of ordered pairs.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:51 AM, vignesh radhakrishnan <
rvignesh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The unordered pair will be a subset of cartesian product. What is the
> significance of it?
>
>
> On 8 February 2010 2
Not indeed.
Cartesian product produces tuples as the result, but I am interested
in the set form of these tuples.
if there are two sets like X={A,B,C} & Y={A,B}
then The Cartesian product will be:
X.Y={(A,A),(A,B),(B,A),(B,B),(C,A),(C,B)}
Whereas if insted of tuples sets were produced it w
The unordered pair will be a subset of cartesian product. What is the
significance of it?
On 8 February 2010 21:18, pinco1984 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have came across a problem and I am not aware if there is such a
> thing in set theory and if so what is it called.
>
> Mainly I have several sets
Hi all,
I have came across a problem and I am not aware if there is such a
thing in set theory and if so what is it called.
Mainly I have several sets that I am interested in their cartesian
product. But this cartesian product should not be a set of ordered
pairs but a set of sets. Basically unor
