Am I Getting the Hang of Relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Learning_Math
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of the relation R defined on the set of real numbers, where xRy if (x < 0) or (x ≥ 0 and x = y). The relation is confirmed to be reflexive, as every element x satisfies xRx. It is also symmetric, as demonstrated by the conditions for positive and negative values of y. The transitive property is established with clarification that if xRy and yRz, then xRz holds true under the defined conditions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relations in mathematics
  • Familiarity with reflexive, symmetric, and transitive properties
  • Basic knowledge of real numbers and inequalities
  • Ability to analyze logical statements
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of equivalence relations in depth
  • Explore examples of non-equivalence relations
  • Learn about the implications of transitive relations in set theory
  • Investigate the role of relations in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, educators teaching relations and set theory, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of mathematical logic.

Learning_Math
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
1. R on the set (the reals) defined by xRy iff (x < 0) or (x > or equal to 0 and x = y)



2. None



3.

Reflexive - Yes, since no matter what x I choose, x will always be equal to x, and will therefore fit the conditions of the relation.

Symmetric - It is symmetric because if I choose a positive y, then it is symmetric because of (x > or equal to 0 and x = y). If I choose a negative y, it is symmetric because of (x < 0).

Transitive - I am a little unclear on this one. I think however, that it is transitive because if I choose a positive z, then it is transitive because of (y > or equal to 0 and y = z). If I choose a negative z, it is transitive because of (y < 0).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think it's symmetric. For example, it seems xRy but not yRx when x=-1 and y=1.

And I think you're right that it is transitive. However, it seems like you'd want to condition on x rather than z. That is, suppose xRy and yRz.
Then either x<0, in which case xRz. Or x>=0, in which case x=y so xRz because yRz.
 
That was helpful, thank you grief.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K