MHB Do we have to show that the relation is irreflexive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Smile)

  • Let $R$ be an order of the set $A$. Then $R$ induces a strict order $S$ at the set $A$.
    $$$$
  • Let $S$ be a strict order of the set $A$. Then $S$ induces an order $R$ at the set $A$.

The first sentence is proven like that in my notes:

We define $S:=R-I_A$ and we can see that $S$ is a strict order at $A$.

$$x \in A\\y \in A$$

$$xSy \leftrightarrow \langle x,y \rangle \in S=R-I_A\\ \langle x,y \rangle \in R \wedge \langle x,y \rangle \notin I_A$$

We want to show that $\langle y,x \rangle \notin S$.
If not then $\langle y,x \rangle \in S \wedge \langle y,x \rangle \in I_A \leftrightarrow \langle x,x \rangle \notin I_A$.In that way we have shown that $S$ isn't weak antisymmetric.
But don't we also have to show that $S$ is irreflexive?
We know that $S$ is transitive as a subset of a transitive relation, right? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
We define $S:=R-I_A$ and we can see want to show that $S$ is a strict order at $A$.

evinda said:
$$x \in A\\y \in A$$
For all $x,y$? For some $x,y$? Which ones? Please use words.

evinda said:
$$xSy \leftrightarrow \langle x,y \rangle \in S=R-I_A\\ \langle x,y \rangle \in R \wedge \langle x,y \rangle \notin I_A$$
OK, I am being picky, but what is the relationship of the second line to the first?

evinda said:
We want to show that $\langle y,x \rangle \notin S$.
Why do we want to show that?

evinda said:
If not then $\langle y,x \rangle \in S \wedge \langle y,x \rangle \in I_A \leftrightarrow \langle x,x \rangle \notin I_A$.
There are too many ways to parse this.

(1) $\langle y,x \rangle \in S$, and also $\langle y,x \rangle \in I_A$ is equivalent to $\langle x,x \rangle \notin I_A$ (but both sides of the equivalence may be false).

(2) $\langle y,x \rangle \in S$ and $\langle y,x \rangle \in I_A$ are together equivalent to $\langle x,x \rangle \notin I_A$ (but both sides may be false).

(3) We have $\langle y,x \rangle \in S$ and $\langle y,x \rangle \in I_A$, and since these statements together are equivalent to $\langle x,x \rangle \notin I_A$, we have the latter.

There are possibly other ways. Please stop abbreviating the flow of reasoning with arrows. This is not helping. Please write words.

evinda said:
In that way we have shown that $S$ isn't weak antisymmetric.
I am not familiar with this concept.

evinda said:
But don't we also have to show that $S$ is irreflexive?
Yes.

evinda said:
We know that $S$ is transitive as a subset of a transitive relation, right?
Not every subset of a transitive relation is transitive.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top