An operation is a kind of function.
A function is a kind of relation.
A relation is a subset of a Cartesian product.
A Cartesian product is an operation.
Back to 1.
It seems to me that there's something wrong. Can we explain $X$ in terms of $Y$, while $Y$ needs $X$ in order to be explained?
The Cartesian product between two sets $A,B$, noted $A \times B$ is defined as the set $$A \times B = \left \{ (x,y) : x \in A \wedge y \in B \right \}$$
A relation $R$ is a subset of a cartesian product: $$R \subseteq A \times B$$
A function $f$ is a triplet $f=(F,A,B)$, where $A,B$ are sets ($A$ is called the domain of $f$, $B$ the codomain) and $F$ is a relation $F \subseteq A \times B$ with the additional properties:
$$(x,y)\in F \wedge (x,z) \in F \Rightarrow y=z$$
$$\forall x \in A \exists y \in B \ \text{such that} \ (x,y)\in F$$
The first is the usual property of functions and the second means, in layman's terms, that "$f$ is defined for every element of $A$".
We note this by saying that $f: A \to B$.
Finally, given a non-empty set $A$, a binary operation $\ast$ on $A$ is a function $$\ast: A \times A \to A$$
By convention, the image $\ast(x,y)$ is usually denoted by $x \ast y$