Fferent thing, or nothing at all. Hence the three possibilities X, Y and ; are sufficient to abstractly describe what can happen in any given interaction between two individuals. Namely, if they do the same thing, they both do X (or Y); if they perform different (non-null) actions, one doesX=Y=; ! X and the other does Y. Our setting is represented by A B. We call “action fluxes” the X=Y=;arrows in that symbol. X=Y=; ! The setting A B generates nine cases shown in Table 1 that we call “ZM241385 chemical information elementary interX=Y=;actions” or just “interactions.” The bottom right case of that table corresponds to the null interX action. For example, the elementary interaction A ! B means that agent A does X to B, andYTable 1. Nine elementary interactions. A!B X A!B X A!B X; Y XA!B YXA!B ; A!B ; A !B ;; YXA!B Y A!B Y;YEach agent (A and B) can do X, Y or ; (nothing) to the other agent. This generates nine possible elementary interactions shown in this table. The bottom right case corresponds to the null interaction. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,4 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social RelationshipsTable 2. Nine elementary interactions, simplified. A!B X A!B X AX Y XA!B Y A!B Y AY YXX A! B Y A! BBBA !B ;;Same as Table 1, with simplified notations for the interactions involving one empty flux. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882.tagent B does Y to A. The elementary interaction A ! B means that agent A does X to B, with;Xout any linked flux going reciprocally from B to A. For convenience of notations, we reduce X this symbol to A ! B. Table 2 shows this simplified CGP-57148BMedChemExpress STI-571 notation for the interactions with one empty flux (i.e. one null action, ;). We call “relationship” a realization of one or several elementary interactions between two individuals. A “composite relationship” is a combination of different elementary interactions, X for example [A ! B and A Y B]. We put between brackets the elementary interactions belonging to a composite relationship, in order to distinguish a composite relationship from a mere enumeration of elementary interactions. A “simple relationship” corresponds to the occurrence X of only one type of elementary interaction, for instance A ! B.YIn both relationships above, A does X and B does Y. We differentiate between these two relationships according to the following rule. We posit that, over time, the (simple) relationship X X X A ! B entails m fluxes A ! B and also m fluxes A Y B in alternation, i.e. each flux A ! B isYfollowed by a flux A Y B. Every time A does X, B does Y. Correspondingly, if the relationship started with B doing Y, then every time B does Y, A does X. The number m may be equal to 1 (if the interaction occurs just once) or may be larger (if the interaction is repeated). That does not imply that the “amounts” of X and Y inside the fluxes match, or even that such quantities can be measured. We come back to that possibility in the discussion. Here we are only talking about the number of fluxes, not the weight of their content. For simplicity, we do not specify X the number m when we talk about A ! B.Y X In contrast, we posit that, in the composite relationship [A ! B and A Y B], fluxes are not alX ternated, such that there are m fluxes A ! B and n fluxes A Y B, with m 6?n and m,n ! 1. As time goes by, A does X on m occasions, while B does Y on n occasions, without any pattern of alternation. Again, the quantities of X and Y within the fluxes are not specified. Also, for simplicity.Fferent thing, or nothing at all. Hence the three possibilities X, Y and ; are sufficient to abstractly describe what can happen in any given interaction between two individuals. Namely, if they do the same thing, they both do X (or Y); if they perform different (non-null) actions, one doesX=Y=; ! X and the other does Y. Our setting is represented by A B. We call “action fluxes” the X=Y=;arrows in that symbol. X=Y=; ! The setting A B generates nine cases shown in Table 1 that we call “elementary interX=Y=;actions” or just “interactions.” The bottom right case of that table corresponds to the null interX action. For example, the elementary interaction A ! B means that agent A does X to B, andYTable 1. Nine elementary interactions. A!B X A!B X A!B X; Y XA!B YXA!B ; A!B ; A !B ;; YXA!B Y A!B Y;YEach agent (A and B) can do X, Y or ; (nothing) to the other agent. This generates nine possible elementary interactions shown in this table. The bottom right case corresponds to the null interaction. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,4 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social RelationshipsTable 2. Nine elementary interactions, simplified. A!B X A!B X AX Y XA!B Y A!B Y AY YXX A! B Y A! BBBA !B ;;Same as Table 1, with simplified notations for the interactions involving one empty flux. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882.tagent B does Y to A. The elementary interaction A ! B means that agent A does X to B, with;Xout any linked flux going reciprocally from B to A. For convenience of notations, we reduce X this symbol to A ! B. Table 2 shows this simplified notation for the interactions with one empty flux (i.e. one null action, ;). We call “relationship” a realization of one or several elementary interactions between two individuals. A “composite relationship” is a combination of different elementary interactions, X for example [A ! B and A Y B]. We put between brackets the elementary interactions belonging to a composite relationship, in order to distinguish a composite relationship from a mere enumeration of elementary interactions. A “simple relationship” corresponds to the occurrence X of only one type of elementary interaction, for instance A ! B.YIn both relationships above, A does X and B does Y. We differentiate between these two relationships according to the following rule. We posit that, over time, the (simple) relationship X X X A ! B entails m fluxes A ! B and also m fluxes A Y B in alternation, i.e. each flux A ! B isYfollowed by a flux A Y B. Every time A does X, B does Y. Correspondingly, if the relationship started with B doing Y, then every time B does Y, A does X. The number m may be equal to 1 (if the interaction occurs just once) or may be larger (if the interaction is repeated). That does not imply that the “amounts” of X and Y inside the fluxes match, or even that such quantities can be measured. We come back to that possibility in the discussion. Here we are only talking about the number of fluxes, not the weight of their content. For simplicity, we do not specify X the number m when we talk about A ! B.Y X In contrast, we posit that, in the composite relationship [A ! B and A Y B], fluxes are not alX ternated, such that there are m fluxes A ! B and n fluxes A Y B, with m 6?n and m,n ! 1. As time goes by, A does X on m occasions, while B does Y on n occasions, without any pattern of alternation. Again, the quantities of X and Y within the fluxes are not specified. Also, for simplicity.
