[FOM] Question about Congruence
a_mani_sc_gs at yahoo.co.in
Tue Jan 29 18:35:53 EST 2008
On Tuesday 29 Jan 2008 10:14:01 pm hdeutsch at ilstu.edu wrote:
> Let me clarify the point of my posting "A Question About Congruence."
> I was asking two questions in my earlier posting. First, is the
> simple fact about closer under equivalence well-known? Secondly, does
> anyone have anything to say about the philosophical import of the
In the general sense * says that B is closed under R iff A \cap B is a
definite (or crisp) set in the rough set terminology. I used a related notion
in a recent paper, but that was about relative approximations. What you have
defined is not a frequently used notion in rough set theory in this
If B is a subset of A, then "B is closed under R" is exactly the same thing
as "B is a definite/crisp set in the approximation space <A, R>" in classical
rough set theory. So it is well-known.
The "Temporal parts" that you mention in your earlier posting are dealt with
in rough mereological approaches too... especially in coherence with
Leibnitz's theory of indiscernibles. (I need to see a copy of your paper
before commenting further).
Member, Cal. Math. Soc
More information about the FOM