Is Relation S Reflexive, Symmetric, and Transitive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kingstar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves analyzing a relation S defined on the set of persons, where xSy holds if person x is taller than person y. The task is to determine whether this relation is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive, and to assess if it qualifies as an equivalence relation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the properties of the relation, noting that it is not symmetric or reflexive. There is uncertainty about its transitive nature, with some participants questioning the implications of the definitions provided.

Discussion Status

Some participants assert that the relation is transitive based on the definitions, while others express hesitation due to the lack of explicit information regarding certain comparisons. The discussion reflects a mix of agreement and questioning of assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original problem does not provide information about the relationship between y and z, which influences their reasoning about transitivity.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K