The phrase "a comparative relation" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the relationship between two or more entities in terms of their similarities or differences.
Example: "In this study, we will analyze a comparative relation between urban and rural populations regarding access to healthcare."
Alternatives: "a comparative connection" or "a comparative link".
Furthermore, "roughly equal" is a relation that can be defined only in virtue of three items, and as such, appears to be something distinct from a standard comparative relation.
There is some debate as to whether "roughly equal" is in fact a fourth comparative relation to be considered in addition to the three standard relations, "better than," "worse than," and "equally good".
The root node is then connected with the concept "ceiling_height" through a possessing relationship represented by "has;" then the concept "ceiling_height" is connected to the quantity "7 feet" through a quantity comparative relation "greater_than_or_equal".
For example, Fig. 4 shows the tree-shaped visualization of the regulatory requirement in Listing 3. The visualization starts from the root node "courts" and connects to the concept "width" through a possessing relationship represented by "has;" then the concept "width" is connected to the quantity "3 feet" through a quantity comparative relation "greater_than_or_equal".
Motivated by human cognitive processes [12], a more robust way to estimate a facial age is arguably to be in a comparative manner, i.e., learning from a number of comparative relations (a given face is younger or older than another face of known age).
In addition, as discussed, alternatives that appear incomparable by way of "better than," "worse than," or "equally good" may be comparable by way of some fourth comparative relation, such as "roughly equal" or "on a par".
The next axiom is really what makes it possible to determine a comparative belief relation from an agent's preferences.
In any case, it turns out that when a person's preferences satisfy Savage's axioms, we can read off her preferences a comparative belief relation that can be represented by a (unique) probability function.
The scalar energy function E measures the compatibility between X i and B m and leads to a set of hints associated with the in-between comparative relation, cf. Fig. 2.
Such comparative relation can help to understand the results obtained.
