Is Relation S Reflexive, Symmetric, and Transitive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kingstar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary
The relation S, defined as person x being taller than person y, is not reflexive because no person is taller than themselves. It is also not symmetric, as if x is taller than y, y cannot be taller than x. However, the relation is transitive; if x is taller than y and y is taller than z, then x is taller than z. Therefore, while S is not an equivalence relation due to the lack of reflexivity and symmetry, it does satisfy the transitive property. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these properties in relation to the definitions provided.
kingstar
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



a) Consider the relation S de fiend on the set {t : t is a person} such that xSy holds exactly if
person x is taller than y. Determine if the relation S is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.
Is the relation S an equivalence relation?

Homework Equations


Recall that a relation R de ned on a set A is reflexive if for all x 2 A xRx.
Recall that a relation R de ned on a set A is symmetric if for all x 2 A and y 2 A the xRy implies
yRx.
Recall that a relation R e ned on a set A is transitive if for all x; y; z in A, both xRy and yRz
holds, then xRz holds as well.
Finally recall that a relation R is an equivalence relation if its reflexive, symmetric and transitive.


The Attempt at a Solution



As far as i can see the set is not symmetric or reflexive but I'm not 100% on transitive...
It would be transitive if x > y and y > z then x > z holds...but we aren't given any information on y > z?

So would this set be transitive?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes the relationship is not symmetric or reflexive, but it IS transitive.

If ##xRy## holds, then ##x > y##, if ##yRz## holds, then ##y > z##. So person ##x## is taller than person ##y## and person ##y## is taller than person ##z##.

It must be the case that person ##x## must be taller than person ##z##.
 
Zondrina said:
Yes the relationship is not symmetric or reflexive, but it IS transitive.

If ##xRy## holds, then ##x > y##, if ##yRz## holds, then ##y > z##. So person ##x## is taller than person ##y## and person ##y## is taller than person ##z##.

It must be the case that person ##x## must be taller than person ##z##.

Yes, i agree with what you said...but the question does not mention that y > z
 
kingstar said:
Yes, i agree with what you said...but the question does not mention that y > z

According to your definition (with some slight corrections):

Recall that a relation ##R## defined on a set ##A## is transitive if ##\forall x, y, z \in A##, if both ##xRy## and ##yRz## hold, then ##xRz## holds as well.

Notice I added the word 'if'. If you assume they hold, does the conclusion still hold?
 
Yeah then it holds. The definition is provided as part of the information the exam question but i'll just assume it in the exam as well. 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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
12K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K