What is the name of an operator which transforms a finite ordered set into a tuple?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Is there a name for such an operation in mathematics, which takes a finite ordered set $S$ (e.g. ${a, b, c, d}$), and creates a tuple $T$ (e.g. $(a, b, c, d)$), performing "concatenate" operation?
By a tuple, I mean $T in S^{cardinality(S)}$
Thanks.
elementary-set-theory terminology order-theory
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Is there a name for such an operation in mathematics, which takes a finite ordered set $S$ (e.g. ${a, b, c, d}$), and creates a tuple $T$ (e.g. $(a, b, c, d)$), performing "concatenate" operation?
By a tuple, I mean $T in S^{cardinality(S)}$
Thanks.
elementary-set-theory terminology order-theory
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
2
Do your "ordered sets" allow repeats? If so, then I think the answer may be "no operation is needed because we call your ordered sets 'tuples'."
– Mark S.
Nov 17 at 0:41
can repeat. An ordered set $S$ isn't a member of $S^{cardinality(S)}$, so is not a tuple.
– Tim
Nov 17 at 0:43
To me, this sounds like the question "What is the name for the function which takes a natural number such as $2$ and returns the corresponding real number $2$?" Does there need to be a name for it? Even if the rigorous definitions differ slightly (which I'm not convinced they do in your case) the end result is that it is clearly doable in an obvious enough fashion that the exact mechanics of it and name of such a transformation need not even warrant a mention.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:51
As for what I would call it if forced to refer to it, I would say that you "reinterpret" the object.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:53
@JMoravitz: No, since there is no natural order on "things", this is not the same as moving from $1+1$ in one monad to another.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 17 at 1:04
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Is there a name for such an operation in mathematics, which takes a finite ordered set $S$ (e.g. ${a, b, c, d}$), and creates a tuple $T$ (e.g. $(a, b, c, d)$), performing "concatenate" operation?
By a tuple, I mean $T in S^{cardinality(S)}$
Thanks.
elementary-set-theory terminology order-theory
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
Is there a name for such an operation in mathematics, which takes a finite ordered set $S$ (e.g. ${a, b, c, d}$), and creates a tuple $T$ (e.g. $(a, b, c, d)$), performing "concatenate" operation?
By a tuple, I mean $T in S^{cardinality(S)}$
Thanks.
elementary-set-theory terminology order-theory
elementary-set-theory terminology order-theory
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
edited Nov 17 at 0:39
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
asked Nov 17 at 0:05
Tim
16.1k20118309
16.1k20118309
2
Do your "ordered sets" allow repeats? If so, then I think the answer may be "no operation is needed because we call your ordered sets 'tuples'."
– Mark S.
Nov 17 at 0:41
can repeat. An ordered set $S$ isn't a member of $S^{cardinality(S)}$, so is not a tuple.
– Tim
Nov 17 at 0:43
To me, this sounds like the question "What is the name for the function which takes a natural number such as $2$ and returns the corresponding real number $2$?" Does there need to be a name for it? Even if the rigorous definitions differ slightly (which I'm not convinced they do in your case) the end result is that it is clearly doable in an obvious enough fashion that the exact mechanics of it and name of such a transformation need not even warrant a mention.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:51
As for what I would call it if forced to refer to it, I would say that you "reinterpret" the object.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:53
@JMoravitz: No, since there is no natural order on "things", this is not the same as moving from $1+1$ in one monad to another.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 17 at 1:04
|
show 4 more comments
2
Do your "ordered sets" allow repeats? If so, then I think the answer may be "no operation is needed because we call your ordered sets 'tuples'."
– Mark S.
Nov 17 at 0:41
can repeat. An ordered set $S$ isn't a member of $S^{cardinality(S)}$, so is not a tuple.
– Tim
Nov 17 at 0:43
To me, this sounds like the question "What is the name for the function which takes a natural number such as $2$ and returns the corresponding real number $2$?" Does there need to be a name for it? Even if the rigorous definitions differ slightly (which I'm not convinced they do in your case) the end result is that it is clearly doable in an obvious enough fashion that the exact mechanics of it and name of such a transformation need not even warrant a mention.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:51
As for what I would call it if forced to refer to it, I would say that you "reinterpret" the object.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:53
@JMoravitz: No, since there is no natural order on "things", this is not the same as moving from $1+1$ in one monad to another.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 17 at 1:04
2
2
Do your "ordered sets" allow repeats? If so, then I think the answer may be "no operation is needed because we call your ordered sets 'tuples'."
– Mark S.
Nov 17 at 0:41
Do your "ordered sets" allow repeats? If so, then I think the answer may be "no operation is needed because we call your ordered sets 'tuples'."
– Mark S.
Nov 17 at 0:41
can repeat. An ordered set $S$ isn't a member of $S^{cardinality(S)}$, so is not a tuple.
– Tim
Nov 17 at 0:43
can repeat. An ordered set $S$ isn't a member of $S^{cardinality(S)}$, so is not a tuple.
– Tim
Nov 17 at 0:43
To me, this sounds like the question "What is the name for the function which takes a natural number such as $2$ and returns the corresponding real number $2$?" Does there need to be a name for it? Even if the rigorous definitions differ slightly (which I'm not convinced they do in your case) the end result is that it is clearly doable in an obvious enough fashion that the exact mechanics of it and name of such a transformation need not even warrant a mention.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:51
To me, this sounds like the question "What is the name for the function which takes a natural number such as $2$ and returns the corresponding real number $2$?" Does there need to be a name for it? Even if the rigorous definitions differ slightly (which I'm not convinced they do in your case) the end result is that it is clearly doable in an obvious enough fashion that the exact mechanics of it and name of such a transformation need not even warrant a mention.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:51
As for what I would call it if forced to refer to it, I would say that you "reinterpret" the object.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:53
As for what I would call it if forced to refer to it, I would say that you "reinterpret" the object.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:53
@JMoravitz: No, since there is no natural order on "things", this is not the same as moving from $1+1$ in one monad to another.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 17 at 1:04
@JMoravitz: No, since there is no natural order on "things", this is not the same as moving from $1+1$ in one monad to another.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 17 at 1:04
|
show 4 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
draft saved
draft discarded
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%2f3001804%2fwhat-is-the-name-of-an-operator-which-transforms-a-finite-ordered-set-into-a-tup%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
2
Do your "ordered sets" allow repeats? If so, then I think the answer may be "no operation is needed because we call your ordered sets 'tuples'."
– Mark S.
Nov 17 at 0:41
can repeat. An ordered set $S$ isn't a member of $S^{cardinality(S)}$, so is not a tuple.
– Tim
Nov 17 at 0:43
To me, this sounds like the question "What is the name for the function which takes a natural number such as $2$ and returns the corresponding real number $2$?" Does there need to be a name for it? Even if the rigorous definitions differ slightly (which I'm not convinced they do in your case) the end result is that it is clearly doable in an obvious enough fashion that the exact mechanics of it and name of such a transformation need not even warrant a mention.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:51
As for what I would call it if forced to refer to it, I would say that you "reinterpret" the object.
– JMoravitz
Nov 17 at 0:53
@JMoravitz: No, since there is no natural order on "things", this is not the same as moving from $1+1$ in one monad to another.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 17 at 1:04