Relations mainly describe the relationship between two or more entities. If we call it a, b, …, then R(a, b) can be used to represent this relationship between a and b. A and B are Z. B. Whole numbers are, inter alia. The relation r = “greater than”. Let R(a, b) be 1 (or true) if b > a, and equal to 0 (or false) if it is not. (Any relation can be assigned to R as any real number between 0 and 1. This can then serve as a measure of the probability that this relation exists (Filk, 2018)). There may be a relation eg. B is also “a friend of” or “whom he is married to”. A three digit relation r(a, b, c) would be e.g. B “Journey from A to B to C”. The entities whose relationship is described are also called relations.
Properties can also be understood as single-digit relationships. Then there is a property with R(A) which is related to A. So R is the predicate assigned to the unit when R(A) = 1. This is how you see it in predicate logic, and this view of properties has contributed significantly to the development of modern logic. So you can do z. NS. Summarize in the mathematical sense with the help of so-called quantifiers all objects that have the property R. In the following, however, we will always take relations to mean two- or multi-digit relations, otherwise we will be talking explicitly about properties.
In a world where there were only assets, there would be no interaction between entities, no development and no structure. One might say that such a world has no meaning. So if we want to understand our world, we have to try to understand relationships as much as we can. The two digit relation of Form R (A, B) is the simplest and also, as per past experience, the most important.
Many of the attributes we use in everyday life, such as “big”, “fast” or “rich”, are often simply understood as attributes. But they are relations. We really should always give a reference, i.e. say what is considered to be something bigger or faster. The pre-Socratic Anaxagoras around 450 BC knew Chr already: “but everything itself is both big and small” (Schupp 2003, p. 130), having already assumed that “size” is only a relationship. As is understandable.
