The relative complement of in is like the complement of , but relative to .
Given two subsets and of a given ambient set , the relative complement of in is the set
That is, consists of those elements of that are not elements of . This is also called the difference of the sets; may even be written . (Compare the symmetric difference.)
Note that the relative complement of in the ambient set is simply the complement of ; sometimes this is called the absolute complement. Conversely, is the intersection of and .
In constructive mathematics, the above definitions still holds for any two decidable subsets of a given ambient set .
In material set theory, all sets are subsets of the proper class of all sets (or all small things, if we might have atoms). In this case, there is no absolute complement (except as a proper class), but we can still form the relative complement:
Given a lattice and two elements and of , a relative complement of relative to is an element such that:
In a poset that is not a lattice, the same definition applies, with the existence of the relevant meet, join, and bottom bring required for the complement to exist. In any case, complements are unique. In a proset, we may speak of a complement, or the complement up to equivalence.
The term Boolean ring is sometimes used for something like a Boolean algebra in which there may be no top element (and therefore no complements) but still relative complements; compare the notions of ring vs algebra at sigma-algebra. That is, a Boolean ring is a bounded-below distributive lattice in which all relative complements exist.
In classical mathematics, this definition includes the previous ones; the power set of is a Boolean algebra, while the class of all sets is (in the sense above) a large Boolean ring.
Given a lattice and two elements and of , a relative pseudocomplement of relative to is an element such that:
The same issues apply about posets, uniqueness, and prosets. A bounded-below distributive lattice in which all relative pseudocomplements exist may be called a Heyting ring, although I don’t know if anybody does. The set-theoretic examples are now valid even in constructive mathematics (although constructivists don’t add ‘pseudo’ in that context).
If a relative complement exists, then every relative pseudocomplement is a relative complement (and vice versa), so the same notation may be used. (Of course, some authors may intend for the notation to imply existence of a relative complement, so some care is still needed.)
Last revised on June 12, 2023 at 21:19:48. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.