Page:Russell, Whitehead - Principia Mathematica, vol. I, 1910.djvu/107

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
III]
RELATIONS
85

(3) Relations. With regard to relations, we have a theory strictly analogous to that which we have just explained as regards classes. Relations in extension, like classes, are incomplete symbols. We require a division of functions of two variables into predicative and non-predicative functions, again for reasons which have been explained in Chapter II. We use the notation "" for a predicative function of and .

We use "" for the function as opposed to its values; and we use "" for the relation (in extension) determined by . We put

Thus even when is not an extensional function of , is an extensional function of . Hence, just as in the case of classes, we deduce

,

i.e. a relation is determined by its extension, and vice versa. On the analogy of the definition of "," we put

[1].

This definition, like that of "," is not introduced for its own sake, but in order to give a meaning to

.

This meaning, in virtue of our definitions, is

,

i.e.

,

and this, in virtue of the axiom of reducibility

","

is equivalent to

.

Thus we have always:

.

Whenever the determining function of a relation is not relevant, we may replace by a single capital letter. In virtue of the propositions given above,

and  

Classes of relations, and relations of relations, can be dealt with as classes of classes were dealt with above.

  1. This definition raises certain questions as to the two senses of a relation, which are dealt with in *21.