Determine Reflexive, Transitive, Symmetric of R Relation

  • Thread starter Thread starter DevNeil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Symmetric Urgent
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on determining the properties of a relation R defined by the condition that for every epsilon > 0, there exist elements a in set A and b in set B such that |a - b| < epsilon. The user successfully proved that the relation is reflexive by demonstrating that (A, A) is in R for all elements in A. However, the user seeks guidance on proving transitivity, symmetry, and whether sets A and B need to be mutually exclusive. Clarification on the nature of sets A and B is also requested, as their definitions are crucial for further analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical relations and their properties (reflexive, transitive, symmetric).
  • Familiarity with epsilon-delta definitions in real analysis.
  • Basic knowledge of set theory, particularly regarding subsets and their elements.
  • Ability to construct mathematical proofs and counterexamples.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definitions and proofs of transitive and symmetric relations in mathematics.
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in real analysis for deeper understanding.
  • Explore examples of non-empty subsets of real numbers to clarify the properties of relations.
  • Learn how to construct counterexamples to disprove properties of relations.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying advanced mathematics, particularly those focusing on set theory and relations, as well as educators seeking to clarify these concepts for their students.

DevNeil
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Determine if the following relation is reflexive, transitive, symmetric or anti-symmetric.
(A,B) element of R(relation) if for every epsilon > 0, there exists a element of A and b element of B with |a-b| < epsilon.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I already proved that this is a reflexive relation (please correct me if I'm wrong):
Let (A,B) be in R.
Prove that (A,A) is also in R.
NTS: For all a element of A and b element of A, |a-b| < epsilon ; epsilon>0
Proof:
Let a be element of A and b element of A (also).
|a E A - b E A| ?< epsilon
for simplicity we can write it: |a-a| < epsilon, which is true for all a and b because there's a chance that a and b will be equal since they're taken in the same set. We are sure that 0 < epsilon because epsilon > 0 by our assumption.

Now, how can I show that this is also transitive? and symmetric or antisymmetric?
Minor question, do I need to confirm that sets A and B are mutually exclusive to each other?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DevNeil said:

Homework Statement



Determine if the following relation is reflexive, transitive, symmetric or anti-symmetric.
(A,B) element of R(relation) if for every epsilon > 0, there exists a element of A and b element of B with |a-b| < epsilon.

You haven't told us what A and B are. One might guess they are (non-empty?) subsets of the real numbers. Is that right?

The Attempt at a Solution


I already proved that this is a reflexive relation (please correct me if I'm wrong):
Let (A,B) be in R.
Prove that (A,A) is also in R.
NTS: For all a element of A and b element of A, |a-b| < epsilon ; epsilon>0
To prove R is reflexive you need to show (A,A) in R for all A. You don't start with "Let (A,B) in R".
Proof:
Let a be element of A and b element of A (also).
|a E A - b E A| ?< epsilon
for simplicity we can write it: |a-a| < epsilon, which is true for all a and b because there's a chance that a and b will be equal since they're taken in the same set. We are sure that 0 < epsilon because epsilon > 0 by our assumption.

That is a very confused paragraph. All you need to write is: Suppose ##\epsilon > 0##. Pick any a in A (A is non-empty?). ##|a - a|=0 < \epsilon## so (A,A) is in R.
Now, how can I show that this is also transitive? and symmetric or antisymmetric?

Write down carefully what you need to prove as a first step. If it seems reasonable, try to prove it, otherwise see if you can make a counterexample.
Minor question, do I need to confirm that sets A and B are mutually exclusive to each other?
Thanks.

Who knows? Like I said above, you haven't even told us what A and B are.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K