By way of illustrating the different sorts of things that can occur in considering the projective reducibility of relations, it is convenient to reuse the four examples of 3-adic relations that are discussed in the main article on that subject.
Examples of projectively irreducible relations
The 3-adic relations
and
are shown in the next two Tables:
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
A 2-adic projection of a 3-adic relation
is the 2-adic relation that results from deleting one column of the table for
and then deleting all but one row of any resulting rows that happen to be identical in content. In other words, the multiplicity of any repeated row is ignored.
In the case of the above two relations,
the 2-adic projections are indexed by the columns or domains that remain, as shown in the following Tables.
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
It is clear on inspection that the following three equations hold:
 |
 |
 |
These equations say that
and
cannot be distinguished from each other solely on the basis of their 2-adic projection data. In such a case, each relation is said to be irreducible with respect to 2-adic projections. Since reducibility with respect to 2-adic projections is the only interesting case where it concerns the reduction of 3-adic relations, it is customary to say more simply of such a relation that it is projectively irreducible, the 2-adic basis being understood. It is immediate from the definition that projectively irreducible relations always arise in non-trivial multiplets of mutually indiscernible relations.
Examples of projectively reducible relations
The 3-adic relations
and
are shown in the next two Tables:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In the case of the two sign relations,
the 2-adic projections are indexed by the columns or domains that remain, as shown in the following Tables.
 |
 |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
It is clear on inspection that the following three inequalities hold:
 |
 |
 |
These inequalities say that
and
can be distinguished from each other solely on the basis of their 2-adic projection data. But this is not enough to say that either one of them is projectively reducible to their 2-adic projection data. To say that a 3-adic relation is projectively reducible in that respect, one has to show that it can be distinguished from every other 3-adic relation on the basis of the 2-adic projection data alone.
In other words, to show that a 3-adic relation
on
is reducible or reconstructible in the 2-adic projective sense, it is necessary to show that no distinct
on
exists such that
and
have the same set of projections. Proving this takes a much more comprehensive or exhaustive investigation of the space of possible relations on
than looking merely at one or two relations at a time.
Fact. As it happens, each of the relations
and
is uniquely determined by its 2-adic projections. This can be seen by following the proof that is given below.
Before tackling the proof, however, it will speed things along to recall a few ideas and notations from other articles.
- If
is a relation over a set of domains that includes the domains
and
then the abbreviated notation
can be used for the projection 
- The operation of reversing a projection asks what elements of a bigger space project onto given elements of a smaller space. The set of elements that project onto
under a given projection
is called the fiber of
under
and is written
or 
- If
is a finite set, the cardinality of
written
or
means the number of elements in 
Proof. Let
be either one of the relations
or
Consider any coordinate position
in the
-plane
If
is not in
then there can be no element
in
therefore we may restrict our attention to positions
in
knowing that there exist at least
elements in
and seeking only to determine what objects
exist such that
is an element in the fiber of
In other words, for what
in
is
in the fiber
Now, the circumstance that
has exactly one element
for each coordinate
in
and that
has exactly one element
for each coordinate
in
plus the “coincidence” of it being the same
at any one choice for
tells us that
has just the one element
over each point of
All together, this proves that both
and
are reducible in an informative sense to 3-tuples of 2-adic relations, that is, they are projectively 2-adically reducible.