On Jun 14, 2:48 pm, ····@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
> Or are there any other terms, I could use instead
> of »alpha« and »beta« above?
It sounds like the words you might be looking for are former and
latter.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/former: 2. First of a list of two items.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/latter: 1. relating to or being the
second of two items
-Ken
On 16 jun, 11:50, ····@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
> Ken Dyck <····@kendyck.com> writes:
> >It sounds like the words you might be looking for are former and
> >latter.
> >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/former:2. First of a list of two items.
> >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/latter:1. relating to or being the
> >second of two items
>
> This is an ingenious observation. But I am afraid that I can
> not use »former« or »latter« with out a preceding explicit
> mentioning of something.
>
> To be specific: I would like to explain a relation »is a«:
>
> »"is a"
>
> The relation where the first component
> is an instance of the second component«.
What about set theory terms?
- "is a" (or "is in" or "belongs to")
The relation where the "element" belongs to the "set"
You can also use elt instead of element if it is convenient.
···@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> To be specific: I would like to explain a relation ��is a��:
>
> ��"is a"
>
> The relation where the first component
> is an instance of the second component��.
>
> I was looking for non-compound terms that can be used instead
> of ��first component�� and ��second component�� and came up with:
You didn't like "domain" and "range":
"is a"
The relation where the domain is an instance of the range.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute