How to Prove It, 2nd Ed. Sec. 4.4 #1b

  • Thread starter Thread starter IntroAnalysis
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relation R defined on the set A = ℝ, where R = {(x, y) ∈ ℝ × ℝ | |x| ≤ |y|}, is reflexive and transitive but not antisymmetric. Therefore, R is not a partial order on A. The key properties of partial orders—reflexivity, transitivity, and antisymmetry—were evaluated, confirming that while R satisfies the first two properties, it fails the antisymmetry condition, as demonstrated with the example of x = -2 and y = 2.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and relations
  • Knowledge of properties of relations: reflexivity, transitivity, and antisymmetry
  • Familiarity with absolute values and inequalities
  • Basic mathematical proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of equivalence relations and how they differ from partial orders
  • Learn about total orders and the conditions required for a relation to be classified as such
  • Explore examples of partial orders in different mathematical contexts
  • Review transitive relations and their applications in set theory
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying discrete mathematics or set theory, as well as educators looking for examples of relations and their properties.

IntroAnalysis
Messages
58
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A = ℝ, R = {(x, y) \in ℝ X ℝ l lxl ≤ lyl }

Say whether R is a partial order on A. If so, is it total order?


Homework Equations


Suppose R is a relation on a set A. Then R is called a partial order on A if it is reflexive, transitive and antisymmetric.

1. R is said to be reflexive on A if \forallx \inA((x,x)\inR.

2. R is said to be transitive on A if \forallx\inA\forally\inA\forallz\inA((xRy\wedgeyRz)\rightarrowxRz).

3. R is said to be antisymmetric if \forallx\inA((xRy\wedge
yRx)→x=y).

The Attempt at a Solution


1. For all x element of A, lxl ≤ lxl. Reflexive, Yes.
2. \forallx\inA\forally\inA\forallz\inA((xRy\wedgeyRz)\rightarrowxRz). Transitive, Yes.
3. If x = -2 and y = 2, then xRy \wedgeyRx, but -2 ≠ 2. So it is not antisymmetric, and thus not a partial order.

Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good, I assume you worked out the transitivity property yourself, but if not you should show your work. xRy ^ yRz => |x|<= |y| and |y|<= |z|, and since <= is transitive (do you need to or have you shown this before?) |x|<=|z|, so xRz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K