The phrase "a relation would be" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a hypothetical or theoretical connection between two or more entities or concepts.
Example: "In mathematics, a relation would be defined as a set of ordered pairs that represent a relationship between two sets."
Alternatives: "a connection could be" or "a relationship might be".
The member of Bradley's team of arguments which has attracted the greatest polemical attention, however, is the one which alleges that if a relation were a further kind of real thing along with its terms (as, e.g., Russell later assumed in his multiple relation theory of judgment), then a further relation would be required to relate it to its terms, and so on ad infinitum.
The hypothesis of a causal relation would be supported if an altered exposure to cigarette smoke, for example smoking cessation, could be shown to reduce the risk of stillbirth.
An example of such a semantic relation would be that the verb "massacre" belongs to the same synonym set as the words "mow down" and "slaughter".
Further analysis should be undertaken before any firm conclusions may be established, although a causal relation would be matter of course.
The reasonable way to prove a causal relation would be to reduce outdoor food advertising in certain neighborhoods and determine whether obesity rates change.
An example of an uninformative relation would be is in place of is the author of.
A Type-Token relation would be annotated when someone utters the word "baby" and a baby is presented in a sequence of frames.
An ideal synonymy relation would be a "one-to-one" relationship between a WHO-ART concept and a SNOMED CT concept.
The exact nature of the mind-dependence relation exemplified by the value-of-gold example is obscure, and it remains to be seen whether this relation would be a reasonable explication of the one invoked by moral non-objectivists.
Having a clear understanding of this relation would be useful in guiding clinical decision making.
