Descriptive proximities: properties and interplay between classical proximities and overlap

DOI10.1007/S11786-017-0328-YMaRDI QIDQ1993367zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors C. Guadagni, James F. Peters, Sheela Ramanna, Anna Di Concilio

Publication date 5 November 2018

Published in Mathematics in Computer Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06246

zbMATH Keywords

descriptive intersection descriptive nearness descriptive proximity overlap probe functions proximity

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Finite affine and projective planes (geometric aspects) (51E15) Proximity structures and generalizations (54E05)

Abstract: The theory of descriptive nearness is usually adopted when dealing with sets that share some common properties even when the sets are not spatially close, i.e., the sets have no members in common. Set description results from the use of probe functions to define feature vectors that describe a set and the nearness of sets is given by their proximities. A probe on a non-empty set

X

is a real-valued function

P h i : X i g h t a r r o w m a t h b b R^{n}

, where

P h i (x) = (p h i_{1} (x), .., p h i_{n} (x))

. We establish a connection between relations on an object space

X

and relations on the feature space

P h i (X) .

Having as starting point the Peters proximity, two sets are emph{descriptively near}, if and only if their descriptions intersect. In this paper, we construct a theoretical approach to a more visual form of proximity, namely, descriptive proximity, which has a broad spectrum of applications. We organize descriptive proximities on two different levels: weaker or stronger than the Peters proximity. We analyze the properties and interplay between descriptions on one side and classical proximities and overlap relations on the other side.

Review text

In this paper the authors extend and elucidate the basic notion of descriptive proximity in terms of numerous descriptive proximities in the realm of classical spatial proximity. The underlying fundamental structure of the descriptive proximities here is the descriptive intersection, denoted by \(\cap_\Phi\) and defined on a set \(X\) by setting \(A \cap_\Phi B =\{x \in A \cup B \mid \Phi(x) \in\Phi(A), \Phi(x)\in\Phi(B)\}\). In this context \(\Phi\) represents a probe on a non-empty set \(X\), which is an \(n\)-dimensional, real-valued function that maps each member of \(X\) to its description. Now, the starting point is what is known as \(\mathcal P_\Phi\) proximity, meaning that two sets are \(\mathcal P_\Phi\)-near iff their \(\Phi\) descriptions intersect. Then descriptive proximities are considered on two different levels, i.e. weaker or stronger than the \(\mathcal P_\Phi\) proximity. The authors analyze the properties and interplay between descriptions on the one hand and classical proximities and overlap relations on the other hand. It turns out that a common descriptive proximity is an Efremovič proximity, whose underlying topology is symmetric and Alexandroff-Hopf. At the end of this paper specific applications of descriptive proximities besides an important practical one in terms of Efremovič descriptive planograms are given. They contain especially proximitizing sets of physical objects, description of qubits in an approach to solving the problem of quantum entanglement, proximal nearness of Voronoi regions in friendship networks, and last but not least descriptive proximity of nerve complexes leading to the study proximal object shapes.

Recommendations

Cites work

Cited in

(16)

This page was built for publication: Descriptive proximities: properties and interplay between classical proximities and overlap

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1993367)