The inductive bias (also known as learning bias) of a learning algorithm is the set of assumptions that the learner uses to predict outputs of given inputs that it has not encountered. Inductive bias is anything which makes the algorithm learn one pattern instead of another pattern (e.g., step-functions in decision trees instead of continuous functions in linear regression models). Learning involves searching a space of solutions for a solution that provides a good explanation of the data. However, in many cases, there may be multiple equally appropriate solutions. An inductive bias allows a learning algorithm to prioritize one solution (or interpretation) over another, independently of the observed data. In machine learning, the aim is to construct algorithms that are able to learn to predict a certain target output. To achieve this, the learning algorithm is presented some training examples that demonstrate the intended relation of input and output values. Then the learner is supposed to approximate the correct output, even for examples that have not been shown during training. Without any additional assumptions, this problem cannot be solved since unseen situations might have an arbitrary output value. The kind of necessary assumptions about the nature of the target function are subsumed in the phrase inductive bias. A classical example of an inductive bias is Occam's razor, assuming that the simplest consistent hypothesis about the target function is actually the best. Here, consistent means that the hypothesis of the learner yields correct outputs for all of the examples that have been given to the algorithm. Approaches to a more formal definition of inductive bias are based on mathematical logic. Here, the inductive bias is a logical formula that, together with the training data, logically entails the hypothesis generated by the learner. However, this strict formalism fails in many practical cases in which the inductive bias can only be given as a rough description (e.g., in the case of artificial neural networks), or not at all. == Types == The following is a list of common inductive biases in machine learning algorithms. Maximum conditional independence: if the hypothesis can be cast in a Bayesian framework, try to maximize conditional independence. This is the bias used in the Naive Bayes classifier. Minimum cross-validation error: when trying to choose among hypotheses, select the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error. Although cross-validation may seem to be free of bias, the "no free lunch" theorems show that cross-validation must be biased, for example assuming that there is no information encoded in the ordering of the data. Maximum margin: when drawing a boundary between two classes, attempt to maximize the width of the boundary. This is the bias used in support vector machines. The assumption is that distinct classes tend to be separated by wide boundaries. Minimum description length: when forming a hypothesis, attempt to minimize the length of the description of the hypothesis. Minimum features: unless there is good evidence that a feature is useful, it should be deleted. This is the assumption behind feature selection algorithms. Nearest neighbors: assume that most of the cases in a small neighborhood in feature space belong to the same class. Given a case for which the class is unknown, guess that it belongs to the same class as the majority in its immediate neighborhood. This is the bias used in the k-nearest neighbors algorithm. The assumption is that cases that are near each other tend to belong to the same class. == Shift of bias == Although most learning algorithms have a static bias, some algorithms are designed to shift their bias as they acquire more data. This does not avoid bias, since the bias shifting process itself must have a bias.
Machine-learned interatomic potential
Machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs), or simply machine learning potentials (MLPs), are interatomic potentials constructed using machine learning. Beginning in the 1990s, researchers have employed such programs to construct interatomic potentials by mapping atomic structures to their potential energies. These potentials are referred to as MLIPs or MLPs. Such machine learning potentials promised to fill the gap between density functional theory, a highly accurate but computationally intensive modelling method, and empirically derived or intuitively-approximated potentials, which were far lighter computationally but substantially less accurate. Improvements in artificial intelligence technology heightened the accuracy of MLPs while lowering their computational cost, increasing the role of machine learning in fitting potentials. Machine learning potentials began by using neural networks to tackle low-dimensional systems. While promising, these models could not systematically account for interatomic energy interactions; they could be applied to small molecules in a vacuum, or molecules interacting with frozen surfaces, but not much else – and even in these applications, the models often relied on force fields or potentials derived empirically or with simulations. These models thus remained confined to academia. Modern neural networks construct highly accurate and computationally light potentials, as theoretical understanding of materials science was increasingly built into their architectures and preprocessing. Almost all are local, accounting for all interactions between an atom and its neighbor up to some cutoff radius. There exist some nonlocal models, but these have been experimental for almost a decade. For most systems, reasonable cutoff radii enable highly accurate results. Almost all neural networks intake atomic coordinates and output potential energies. For some, these atomic coordinates are converted into atom-centered symmetry functions. From this data, a separate atomic neural network is trained for each element; each atomic network is evaluated whenever that element occurs in the given structure, and then the results are pooled together at the end. This process – in particular, the atom-centered symmetry functions which convey translational, rotational, and permutational invariances – has greatly improved machine learning potentials by significantly constraining the neural network search space. Other models use a similar process but emphasize bonds over atoms, using pair symmetry functions and training one network per atom pair. Other models to learn their own descriptors rather than using predetermined symmetry-dictating functions. These models, called message-passing neural networks (MPNNs), are graph neural networks. Treating molecules as three-dimensional graphs (where atoms are nodes and bonds are edges), the model takes feature vectors describing the atoms as input, and iteratively updates these vectors as information about neighboring atoms is processed through message functions and convolutions. These feature vectors are then used to predict the final potentials. The flexibility of this method often results in stronger, more generalizable models. In 2017, the first-ever MPNN model (a deep tensor neural network) was used to calculate the properties of small organic molecules. == Gaussian Approximation Potential (GAP) == One popular class of machine-learned interatomic potential is the Gaussian Approximation Potential (GAP), which combines compact descriptors of local atomic environments with Gaussian process regression to machine learn the potential energy surface of a given system. To date, the GAP framework has been used to successfully develop a number of MLIPs for various systems, including for elemental systems such as carbon, silicon, phosphorus, and tungsten, as well as for multicomponent systems such as Ge2Sb2Te5 and austenitic stainless steel, Fe7Cr2Ni. == Equivariant graph neural networks == A significant limitation of early MPNNs was that they were not inherently equivariant to rotations and reflections of atomic structures — meaning predictions could change depending on how a molecule was oriented in space. Beginning around 2021, a new class of models addressed this by incorporating equivariance directly into the message-passing layers using spherical harmonics and irreducible representations. Notable examples include NequIP (2021), MACE (2022), and GemNet-OC (2022). These equivariant architectures proved substantially more data-efficient and accurate than their predecessors, and became the dominant paradigm for high-accuracy MLIPs. == Universal MLIPs and large-scale datasets == Early MLIPs were system-specific, trained on a few thousand structures of a single material. A major shift occurred with the creation of large, chemically diverse datasets enabling models that generalize across many elements, bonding environments, and application domains — so-called universal MLIPs. A key driver was the Open Catalyst Project (OC20, OC22), a collaboration between Meta AI (FAIR) and Carnegie Mellon University launched in 2020. OC20 comprises approximately 1.3 million DFT relaxations across 82 elements, designed to accelerate the discovery of catalysts for renewable energy applications. It was among the first datasets large enough to train GNNs that generalize across diverse chemical systems, and established a widely-used benchmark for the field. A subsequent dataset, Open Direct Air Capture (OpenDAC 2023 and OpenDAC 2025), applied the same approach to carbon capture, providing a large computational database of metal-organic frameworks and sorbent candidates evaluated for CO₂ capture, generated using nearly 400 million CPU hours of quantum chemistry calculations in collaboration with Georgia Tech. These datasets revealed a new challenge: the GNN architectures most effective for atomic simulations were memory-intensive, as they model higher-order interactions between triplets or quadruplets of atoms, making it difficult to scale model size. Graph Parallelism, introduced by Sriram et al. (ICLR 2022), addressed this by distributing a single input graph across multiple GPUs — a distinct strategy from data parallelism (which distributes training examples) or model parallelism (which distributes layers). This enabled training GNNs with hundreds of millions to billions of parameters for the first time. Building on these foundations, Meta FAIR released the Universal Model for Atoms (UMA) in 2025, trained on approximately 500 million unique 3D atomic structures spanning molecules, materials, and catalysts — the largest training run to date for an MLIP. UMA introduced a Mixture of Linear Experts (MoLE) architecture, enabling one model to learn from datasets generated by different DFT codes and settings without significant inference overhead. It matches or surpasses specialized models across catalysis, materials, and molecular benchmarks without task-specific fine-tuning, and has been described as marking a "pre/post-UMA" divide in the field. == Applications == Catalyst discovery: MLIPs have significantly accelerated the computational screening of heterogeneous catalysts by replacing expensive DFT relaxations with fast neural network surrogates. The Open Catalyst Project explicitly targets this application, aiming to identify new catalysts for green hydrogen production and other renewable energy reactions. Carbon capture: The OpenDAC project applies universal MLIPs to screening sorbent materials for direct air capture of CO₂, a key technology for climate change mitigation. AI-accelerated screening allows evaluation of orders of magnitude more candidate materials than traditional DFT workflows. Drug discovery and molecular design: MLIPs are increasingly used in pharmaceutical research to model molecular conformations and binding energies. The Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, released by Meta FAIR in 2025, provides high-accuracy calculations for a large set of molecular systems to support this use case. Materials discovery: Universal MLIPs enable high-throughput screening of novel inorganic materials, including battery electrolytes, semiconductors, and superconductors, by rapidly estimating stability and properties across large chemical spaces.
Automatic image annotation
Automatic image annotation (also known as automatic image tagging or linguistic indexing) is the process by which a computer system automatically assigns metadata in the form of captioning or keywords to a digital image. This application of computer vision techniques is used in image retrieval systems to organize and locate images of interest from a database. This method can be regarded as a type of multi-class image classification with a very large number of classes - as large as the vocabulary size. Typically, image analysis in the form of extracted feature vectors and the training annotation words are used by machine learning techniques to attempt to automatically apply annotations to new images. The first methods learned the correlations between image features and training annotations. Subsequently, techniques were developed using machine translation to attempt to translate the textual vocabulary into the 'visual vocabulary,' represented by clustered regions known as blobs. Subsequent work has included classification approaches, relevance models, and other related methods. The advantages of automatic image annotation versus content-based image retrieval (CBIR) are that queries can be more naturally specified by the user. At present, Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) generally requires users to search by image concepts such as color and texture or by finding example queries. However, certain image features in example images may override the concept that the user is truly focusing on. Traditional methods of image retrieval, such as those used by libraries, have relied on manually annotated images, which is expensive and time-consuming, especially given the large and constantly growing image databases in existence.
Enumeration algorithm
In computer science, an enumeration algorithm is an algorithm that enumerates the answers to a computational problem. Formally, such an algorithm applies to problems that take an input and produce a list of solutions, similarly to function problems. For each input, the enumeration algorithm must produce the list of all solutions, without duplicates, and then halt. The performance of an enumeration algorithm is measured in terms of the time required to produce the solutions, either in terms of the total time required to produce all solutions, or in terms of the maximal delay between two consecutive solutions and in terms of a preprocessing time, counted as the time before outputting the first solution. This complexity can be expressed in terms of the size of the input, the size of each individual output, or the total size of the set of all outputs, similarly to what is done with output-sensitive algorithms. == Formal definitions == An enumeration problem P {\displaystyle P} is defined as a relation R {\displaystyle R} over strings of an arbitrary alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } : R ⊆ Σ ∗ × Σ ∗ {\displaystyle R\subseteq \Sigma ^{}\times \Sigma ^{}} An algorithm solves P {\displaystyle P} if for every input x {\displaystyle x} the algorithm produces the (possibly infinite) sequence y {\displaystyle y} such that y {\displaystyle y} has no duplicate and z ∈ y {\displaystyle z\in y} if and only if ( x , z ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (x,z)\in R} . The algorithm should halt if the sequence y {\displaystyle y} is finite. == Common complexity classes == Enumeration problems have been studied in the context of computational complexity theory, and several complexity classes have been introduced for such problems. A very general such class is EnumP, the class of problems for which the correctness of a possible output can be checked in polynomial time in the input and output. Formally, for such a problem, there must exist an algorithm A which takes as input the problem input x, the candidate output y, and solves the decision problem of whether y is a correct output for the input x, in polynomial time in x and y. For instance, this class contains all problems that amount to enumerating the witnesses of a problem in the class NP. Other classes that have been defined include the following. In the case of problems that are also in EnumP, these problems are ordered from least to most specific: Output polynomial, the class of problems whose complete output can be computed in polynomial time. Incremental polynomial time, the class of problems where, for all i, the i-th output can be produced in polynomial time in the input size and in the number i. Polynomial delay, the class of problems where the delay between two consecutive outputs is polynomial in the input (and independent from the output). Strongly polynomial delay, the class of problems where the delay before each output is polynomial in the size of this specific output (and independent from the input or from the other outputs). The preprocessing is generally assumed to be polynomial. Constant delay, the class of problems where the delay before each output is constant, i.e., independent from the input and output. The preprocessing phase is generally assumed to be polynomial in the input. == Common techniques == Backtracking: The simplest way to enumerate all solutions is by systematically exploring the space of possible results (partitioning it at each successive step). However, performing this may not give good guarantees on the delay, i.e., a backtracking algorithm may spend a long time exploring parts of the space of possible results that do not give rise to a full solution. Flashlight search: This technique improves on backtracking by exploring the space of all possible solutions but solving at each step the problem of whether the current partial solution can be extended to a partial solution. If the answer is no, then the algorithm can immediately backtrack and avoid wasting time, which makes it easier to show guarantees on the delay between any two complete solutions. In particular, this technique applies well to self-reducible problems. Closure under set operations: If we wish to enumerate the disjoint union of two sets, then we can solve the problem by enumerating the first set and then the second set. If the union is non disjoint but the sets can be enumerated in sorted order, then the enumeration can be performed in parallel on both sets while eliminating duplicates on the fly. If the union is not disjoint and both sets are not sorted then duplicates can be eliminated at the expense of a higher memory usage, e.g., using a hash table. Likewise, the cartesian product of two sets can be enumerated efficiently by enumerating one set and joining each result with all results obtained when enumerating the second step. == Examples of enumeration problems == The vertex enumeration problem, where we are given a polytope described as a system of linear inequalities and we must enumerate the vertices of the polytope. Enumerating the minimal transversals of a hypergraph. This problem is related to monotone dualization and is connected to many applications in database theory and graph theory. Enumerating the answers to a database query, for instance a conjunctive query or a query expressed in monadic second-order. There have been characterizations in database theory of which conjunctive queries could be enumerated with linear preprocessing and constant delay. The problem of enumerating maximal cliques in an input graph, e.g., with the Bron–Kerbosch algorithm Listing all elements of structures such as matroids and greedoids Several problems on graphs, e.g., enumerating independent sets, paths, cuts, etc. Enumerating the satisfying assignments of representations of Boolean functions, e.g., a Boolean formula written in conjunctive normal form or disjunctive normal form, a binary decision diagram such as an OBDD, or a Boolean circuit in restricted classes studied in knowledge compilation, e.g., NNF. == Connection to computability theory == The notion of enumeration algorithms is also used in the field of computability theory to define some high complexity classes such as RE, the class of all recursively enumerable problems. This is the class of sets for which there exist an enumeration algorithm that will produce all elements of the set: the algorithm may run forever if the set is infinite, but each solution must be produced by the algorithm after a finite time.
Informedia Digital Library
The Informedia Digital Library is an ongoing research program at Carnegie Mellon University to build search engines and information visualization technology for many types of media. The program has carried out research on spoken document retrieval, video information retrieval, video segmentation, face recognition, and cross-language information retrieval. The Lycos search engine was an early product of the Informedia Digital Library Project. The project is led by Howard Wactlar. Researchers on the project have included: Michael Mauldin, Alex Hauptmann, Michael Christel, Michael Witbrock, Raj Reddy, Takeo Kanade and Scott Stevens.
Keka HR
Keka HR is a software company that provides cloud-based human resource management and payroll automation software. Keka HR specializes in providing business services in the field of HR technology, payroll automation, recruiting, leave, attendance and performance management. The company was founded by Vijay Yalamanchili on July 21, 2014. The company is headquartered in Hyderabad, with operations in Singapore and the United States. == History == Keka HR was established in 2014 in Hyderabad, Telangana, India. In 2015, the company entered the Indian HR market and received the HYSEA Startup Award. By 2019, Keka HR had surpassed $1 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR). During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the company reported a sevenfold increase in sales. By 2021, the company had raised $1.6 million through Recur Club. In 2022, Keka HR secured $57 million in Series A funding from West Bridge Capital. The company's headquarters are located in Gachibowli, Hyderabad, with offices in Singapore and Seattle, Washington.
Tuple
In mathematics, a tuple is a finite sequence (or ordered list) of numbers. More generally, it is a sequence of mathematical objects, called the elements of the tuple. An n-tuple is a tuple of n elements, where n is a non-negative integer. There is only one 0-tuple, called the empty tuple. A 1-tuple and a 2-tuple are commonly called a singleton and an ordered pair, respectively. The term "infinite tuple" is occasionally used for "infinite sequences". Tuples are usually written by listing the elements within parentheses "( )" and separated by commas; for example, (2, 7, 4, 1, 7) denotes a 5-tuple. Other types of brackets are sometimes used, although they may have a different meaning. An n-tuple can be formally defined as the image of a function that has the set of the first n natural numbers as its domain (1, 2, ..., n). Tuples may be also defined from ordered pairs by a recurrence starting from an ordered pair; indeed, an n-tuple can be identified with the ordered pair of its (n − 1) first elements and its nth element, for example, ( ( ( 1 , 2 ) , 3 ) , 4 ) = ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) {\displaystyle \left(\left(\left(1,2\right),3\right),4\right)=\left(1,2,3,4\right)} . In computer science, tuples come in many forms. Most typed functional programming languages implement tuples directly as product types, tightly associated with algebraic data types, pattern matching, and destructuring assignment. Many programming languages offer an alternative to tuples, known as record types, featuring unordered elements accessed by label. A few programming languages combine ordered tuple product types and unordered record types into a single construct, as in C structs and Haskell records. Relational databases may formally identify their rows (records) as tuples. Tuples also occur in relational algebra; when programming the semantic web with the Resource Description Framework (RDF); in linguistics; and in philosophy. == Etymology == The term originated as an abstraction of the sequence: single, couple/double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple, septuple, octuple, ..., n‑tuple, ..., where the prefixes are taken from the Latin names of the numerals. The unique 0-tuple is called the null tuple or empty tuple. A 1‑tuple is called a single (or singleton), a 2‑tuple is called an ordered pair or couple, and a 3‑tuple is called a triple (or triplet). The number n can be any nonnegative integer. For example, a complex number can be represented as a 2‑tuple of reals, a quaternion can be represented as a 4‑tuple, an octonion can be represented as an 8‑tuple, and a sedenion can be represented as a 16‑tuple. Although these uses treat ‑tuple as the suffix, the original suffix was ‑ple as in "triple" (three-fold) or "decuple" (ten‑fold). This originates from medieval Latin plus (meaning "more") related to Greek ‑πλοῦς, which replaced the classical and late antique ‑plex (meaning "folded"), as in "duplex". == Properties == The general rule for the identity of two n-tuples is ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n ) = ( b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{n})=(b_{1},b_{2},\ldots ,b_{n})} if and only if a 1 = b 1 , a 2 = b 2 , … , a n = b n {\displaystyle a_{1}=b_{1},{\text{ }}a_{2}=b_{2},{\text{ }}\ldots ,{\text{ }}a_{n}=b_{n}} . Thus a tuple has properties that distinguish it from a set: A tuple may contain multiple instances of the same element, so tuple ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 3 ) ≠ ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) {\displaystyle (1,2,2,3)\neq (1,2,3)} ; but set { 1 , 2 , 2 , 3 } = { 1 , 2 , 3 } {\displaystyle \{1,2,2,3\}=\{1,2,3\}} . Tuple elements are ordered: tuple ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) ≠ ( 3 , 2 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (1,2,3)\neq (3,2,1)} , but set { 1 , 2 , 3 } = { 3 , 2 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{1,2,3\}=\{3,2,1\}} . A tuple has a finite number of elements, while a set or a multiset may have an infinite number of elements. == Definitions == There are several definitions of tuples that give them the properties described in the previous section. === Tuples as functions === The 0 {\displaystyle 0} -tuple may be identified as the empty function. For n ≥ 1 , {\displaystyle n\geq 1,} the n {\displaystyle n} -tuple ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \left(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\right)} may be identified with the surjective function F : { 1 , … , n } → { a 1 , … , a n } {\displaystyle F~:~\left\{1,\ldots ,n\right\}~\to ~\left\{a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\right\}} with domain domain F = { 1 , … , n } = { i ∈ N : 1 ≤ i ≤ n } {\displaystyle \operatorname {domain} F=\left\{1,\ldots ,n\right\}=\left\{i\in \mathbb {N} :1\leq i\leq n\right\}} and with codomain codomain F = { a 1 , … , a n } , {\displaystyle \operatorname {codomain} F=\left\{a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\right\},} that is defined at i ∈ domain F = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \operatorname {domain} F=\left\{1,\ldots ,n\right\}} by F ( i ) := a i . {\displaystyle F(i):=a_{i}.} That is, F {\displaystyle F} is the function defined by 1 ↦ a 1 ⋮ n ↦ a n {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{3}1\;&\mapsto &&\;a_{1}\\\;&\;\;\vdots &&\;\\n\;&\mapsto &&\;a_{n}\\\end{alignedat}}} in which case the equality ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n ) = ( F ( 1 ) , F ( 2 ) , … , F ( n ) ) {\displaystyle \left(a_{1},a_{2},\dots ,a_{n}\right)=\left(F(1),F(2),\dots ,F(n)\right)} necessarily holds. Tuples as sets of ordered pairs Functions are commonly identified with their graphs, which is a certain set of ordered pairs. Indeed, many authors use graphs as the definition of a function. Using this definition of "function", the above function F {\displaystyle F} can be defined as: F := { ( 1 , a 1 ) , … , ( n , a n ) } . {\displaystyle F~:=~\left\{\left(1,a_{1}\right),\ldots ,\left(n,a_{n}\right)\right\}.} === Tuples as nested ordered pairs === Another way of modeling tuples in set theory is as nested ordered pairs. This approach assumes that the notion of ordered pair has already been defined. The 0-tuple (i.e. the empty tuple) is represented by the empty set ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } . An n-tuple, with n > 0, can be defined as an ordered pair of its first entry and an (n − 1)-tuple (which contains the remaining entries when n > 1): ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( a 1 , ( a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=(a_{1},(a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n}))} This definition can be applied recursively to the (n − 1)-tuple: ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( a 1 , ( a 2 , ( a 3 , ( … , ( a n , ∅ ) … ) ) ) ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=(a_{1},(a_{2},(a_{3},(\ldots ,(a_{n},\emptyset )\ldots ))))} Thus, for example: ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) = ( 1 , ( 2 , ( 3 , ∅ ) ) ) ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) = ( 1 , ( 2 , ( 3 , ( 4 , ∅ ) ) ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(1,2,3)&=(1,(2,(3,\emptyset )))\\(1,2,3,4)&=(1,(2,(3,(4,\emptyset ))))\\\end{aligned}}} A variant of this definition starts "peeling off" elements from the other end: The 0-tuple is the empty set ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } . For n > 0: ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n − 1 ) , a n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=((a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n-1}),a_{n})} This definition can be applied recursively: ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( ( … ( ( ( ∅ , a 1 ) , a 2 ) , a 3 ) , … ) , a n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=((\ldots (((\emptyset ,a_{1}),a_{2}),a_{3}),\ldots ),a_{n})} Thus, for example: ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) = ( ( ( ∅ , 1 ) , 2 ) , 3 ) ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) = ( ( ( ( ∅ , 1 ) , 2 ) , 3 ) , 4 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(1,2,3)&=(((\emptyset ,1),2),3)\\(1,2,3,4)&=((((\emptyset ,1),2),3),4)\\\end{aligned}}} === Tuples as nested sets === Using Kuratowski's representation for an ordered pair, the second definition above can be reformulated in terms of pure set theory: The 0-tuple (i.e. the empty tuple) is represented by the empty set ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } ; Let x {\displaystyle x} be an n-tuple ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{n})} , and let x → b ≡ ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n , b ) {\displaystyle x\rightarrow b\equiv (a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{n},b)} . Then, x → b ≡ { { x } , { x , b } } {\displaystyle x\rightarrow b\equiv \{\{x\},\{x,b\}\}} . (The right arrow, → {\displaystyle \rightarrow } , could be read as "adjoined with".) In this formulation: ( ) = ∅ ( 1 ) = ( ) → 1 = { { ( ) } , { ( ) , 1 } } = { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } ( 1 , 2 ) = ( 1 ) → 2 = { { ( 1 ) } , { ( 1 ) , 2 } } = { { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } } , { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } , 2 } } ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) = ( 1 , 2 ) → 3 = { { ( 1 , 2 ) } , { ( 1 , 2 ) , 3 } } = { { { { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } } , { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } , 2 } } } , { { { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } } , { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } , 2 } } , 3 } } {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lclcl}()&&&=&\emptyset \\&&&&\\(1)&=&()\rightarrow 1&=&\{\{()\},\{(),1\}\}\\&&&=&\{\{\emptyset \},\{\emptyset ,1\}\}\\&&&&\\(1,2)&=&(1)\rightarrow 2&=&\{\{(1)\},\{(1),2\}\}\\&&&=&\{\{\{\{\emptyset \},\{\emptyset ,1\}\}\},\\&&&&\{\{\{\emptyset \},\{\emptyset ,1\}\},2\}\}\\&&&&\\(1,2,3)&=&(1,2)\rightarrow 3&=&\{\{(1,2)\},\{(1,2),3\}\}\\&&&=&\{\{\{\{\{\{\empty