Definition
A partition of a set S is a pairwise disjoint set of non-empty subsets, called "parts" or "blocks", whose union is all of S. Consider a finite set that is linearly ordered, or (equivalently, for purposes of this definition) arranged in a cyclic order like the vertices of a regular n-gon. No generality is lost by taking this set to be S = { 1, ..., n }. A noncrossing partition of S is a partition in which no two blocks "cross" each other, i.e., if a and b belong to one block and x and y to another, they are not arranged in the order a x b y. If one draws an arch based at a and b, and another arch based at x and y, then the two arches cross each other if the order is a x b y but not if it is a x y b or a b x y. In the latter two orders the partition { { a, b }, { x, y } } is noncrossing.
| Crossing: | a x b y |
| Noncrossing: | a x y b |
| Noncrossing: | a b x y |
Equivalently, if we label the vertices of a regular n-gon with the numbers 1 through n, the convex hulls of different blocks of the partition are disjoint from each other, i.e., they also do not "cross" each other. The set of all non-crossing partitions of S are denoted . There is an obvious order isomorphism between and for two finite sets with the same size. That is, depends essentially only on the size of and we denote by the non-crossing partitions on any set of size n.
Read more about this topic: Noncrossing Partition
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“According to our social pyramid, all men who feel displaced racially, culturally, and/or because of economic hardships will turn on those whom they feel they can order and humiliate, usually women, children, and animals—just as they have been ordered and humiliated by those privileged few who are in power. However, this definition does not explain why there are privileged men who behave this way toward women.”
—Ana Castillo (b. 1953)
“Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
Is the eternal truth man’s fighting soul
Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
—Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)
“The definition of good prose is proper words in their proper places; of good verse, the most proper words in their proper places. The propriety is in either case relative. The words in prose ought to express the intended meaning, and no more; if they attract attention to themselves, it is, in general, a fault.”
—Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834)