Common use of Totality Clause in Contracts

Totality. I briefly touched on totality in section 2.3.1.1, when I defined the constraint RELATE. The axiom of totality requires that all elements in the domain of a relation be related to at least one element in its range. A formal definition is given below. A relation is total iff for each element x in the domain of a relation R is related to at least an element y in the range of R. (xx) Totality is an axiom of dominance in the theory. This should not be surprising. Under most models of the prosodic hierarchy, each element in the prosodic tier is associated to at least one element on a lower level. In other words, no floating prosodic constituent is allowed in the output. For example, because of totality every foot dominates at least a syllable. A representation with a floating foot constitutes an ill-formed representation. Notice that the opposite is not true: a syllable never dominates a foot. For this reason, dominance is only right-total. Likewise, floating features nodes are disallowed in the system. For correspondence relations, totality is not an axiom. In fact, in section 2.3.1.1 I show that RELATE-X constraints favor candidates with left-total relations, in that they only penalize structures where elements in the domain are not in correspondence.

Totality. ‌ I briefly touched on totality in section 2.3.1.1, when I defined the constraint RELATE. The axiom of totality requires that all elements in the domain of a relation be related to at least one element in its range. A formal definition is given below. A relation is total iff for each element x in the domain of a relation R is related to at least an element y in the range of R. (xx) Totality is an axiom of dominance in the theory. This should not be surprising. Under most models of the prosodic hierarchy, each element in the prosodic tier is associated to at least one element on a lower level. In other words, no floating prosodic constituent is allowed in the output. For example, because of totality every foot dominates at least a syllable. A representation with a floating foot constitutes an ill-formed representation. Notice that the opposite is not true: a syllable never dominates a foot. For this reason, dominance is only right-total. Likewise, floating features nodes are disallowed in the system. For correspondence relations, totality is not an axiom. In fact, in section 2.3.1.1 I show that RELATE-X constraints favor candidates with left-total relations, in that they only penalize structures where elements in the domain are not in correspondence.