Register to reply

How can I write down this property of relations

by V0ODO0CH1LD
Tags: property, relations, write
Share this thread:
V0ODO0CH1LD
#1
Mar10-14, 10:17 AM
P: 242
If I have a relation which is not only antisymmetric (##aRb\rightarrow{}\neg{}bRa##) but it also has a property that ##aRb\land{}bRc\rightarrow{}\neg{}cRa##. How can I be sure that this property holds for any string like that? So that ##aRb\land{}bRc\land{}cRd\rightarrow{}\neg{}dRa## without having to write it down forever?

I though writing down ##aRb\land{}bRc\rightarrow{}\neg{}cRa## was enough, but with just that I can't prove that ##cRd\rightarrow{}\neg{}dRa##. How can I define this property? Does it exist already?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
'Moral victories' might spare you from losing again
Fair cake cutting gets its own algorithm
Effort to model Facebook yields key to famous math problem (and a prize)
micromass
#2
Mar10-14, 10:37 AM
Mentor
micromass's Avatar
P: 18,061
Quote Quote by V0ODO0CH1LD View Post
If I have a relation which is not only antisymmetric (##aRb\rightarrow{}\neg{}bRa##)
This is called asymmetric, not antisymmetric.

How can I be sure that this property holds for any string like that?
How do you know that what property holds for any string? You know that asymmetry and the other property hold because you've assumed it holds.

Do you somehow want to derive the property
[tex]aRb ~\wedge~bRc~\wedge~cRd~\rightarrow \neg dRa[/tex]
from the previous two? I think you can easily find examples of relations that are asymmetric and satisfy the second property and such that the above property doesn't hold.
V0ODO0CH1LD
#3
Mar10-14, 02:40 PM
P: 242
Quote Quote by micromass View Post
Do you somehow want to derive the property

[tex]aRb ~\wedge~bRc~\wedge~cRd~\rightarrow \neg dRa[/tex]

from the previous two? I think you can easily find examples of relations that are asymmetric and satisfy the second property and such that the above property doesn't hold.

Sorry, I'm having a hard time explaining this.. I want to create a relation for which asymmetry holds as well as this other property that if a relates to b relates to c relates to d and so on, then not only do they not relate the other way due to asymmetry but also that the last element in the "string" does not relate to any of the previous ones (eg d does not relate to b and a, and c does not relate a) which I don't think you can derive from asymmetry.

My question is: how can I write this property down simply?

LCKurtz
#4
Mar11-14, 01:43 PM
HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
LCKurtz's Avatar
P: 7,583
How can I write down this property of relations

Quote Quote by V0ODO0CH1LD View Post
Sorry, I'm having a hard time explaining this.. I want to create a relation for which asymmetry holds as well as this other property that if a relates to b relates to c relates to d and so on, then not only do they not relate the other way due to asymmetry but also that the last element in the "string" does not relate to any of the previous ones (eg d does not relate to b and a, and c does not relate a) which I don't think you can derive from asymmetry.

My question is: how can I write this property down simply?
Perhaps what you are getting at is what is called a partial ordering. Here are a couple of links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set

http://staff.scm.uws.edu.au/cgi-bin/...gi?page=20&key
V0ODO0CH1LD
#5
Mar11-14, 09:02 PM
P: 242
Quote Quote by LCKurtz View Post
Perhaps what you are getting at is what is called a partial ordering.
Partial ordering satisfies reflexivity, antisymmetry and transitivity, that is not the relation that I am looking for.

The relation I am looking for satisfies the following conditions:
  • (a~b) (anti-reflexitivity)
  • (a~b) then (b~a) (asymmetry)
  • if (a~b) and (b~c) then (c~a) (???)
In the third property, maybe (a~c) but that is not a requirement, the only requirement is that (c~a). Not only that but also if (a~b) and (b~c) and (c~d) then (d~a).
jbriggs444
#6
Mar12-14, 05:12 AM
P: 907
Quote Quote by V0ODO0CH1LD View Post
In the third property, maybe (a~c) but that is not a requirement, the only requirement is that (c~a). Not only that but also if (a~b) and (b~c) and (c~d) then (d~a).
If you view the relation as a directed graph I think that what you are after is that it be "acyclic".


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Why is reflexive property necessary? equivalence relations Precalculus Mathematics Homework 9
Relations bet. Groups, from Relations between Resp. Presentations. Linear & Abstract Algebra 1
Fortran 95: WRITE to screen changes output to WRITE to file Programming & Computer Science 13
Purpose of Residual property and Excess property in Thermodynamics Materials & Chemical Engineering 3
Is science a property of nature or a property of us? General Discussion 13