Checking relation for reflexive, symmetric and transitive

  • Thread starter Thread starter issacnewton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation Symmetric
Click For Summary
The relation R defined by the pairs {(1,6), (2,7), (3,8)} is not reflexive or symmetric, but it is transitive. The lack of elements satisfying the conditions for transitivity means the implication is vacuously true, confirming transitivity. To explain this to students unfamiliar with logic, one could emphasize that if there are no applicable elements, the statement holds true by default. The discussion suggests that a straightforward explanation may suffice for teaching purposes. Overall, the relation R demonstrates transitivity while lacking reflexivity and symmetry.
issacnewton
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
37
Homework Statement
Relation ##R## is defined on set ##\mathbb{N}## of natural numbers defined as
$$R = \big \{ (x,y) | y = x + 5 \text{ and } x < 4 \big \} $$
Relevant Equations
Definition of reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity
Now, with the given set of natural numbers, we can deduce the relation ##R## to be as following

$$ R = \big \{ (1,6), (2,7), (3,8) \big \} $$

Now, obviously this is not a reflexive and symmetric. And I can also see that this is transitive relation. We never have ##(a,b) \in R## and ##(b,c) \in R## since if ##(a,b) \in R##, then we have ##b \nless 4## and so we can not have ##(b,c) \in R##. So, in the definition of the transitivity, the antecedent is always false. And since the definition involves an implication, the implication will always be vacuously true. So, the relation is transitive . So, the relation ##R## is transitive but not reflexive or symmetric. Now, I have used the implication and truth table of implication to see that the relation is transitive. I have to teach this to some students and they have not covered logic and implication. They have only studied basics about the methods of proof like, direct proof, proof by contradiction, proof by contra positive etc. So, how would I explain this to these students ?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If there are no elements for which a statement might hold, then clearly all those elements satisfy the statement (as there are none!).

Not sure what's more to say about it than that. Are you looking for an intuitive answer? Or real life analogies?
 
I think your explanation might suffice for these students I will be teaching. Thanks
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
8K