1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is this sufficient for a relation to be transitive

  1. Jan 21, 2008 #1
    in the book i'm reading it gives a set S={0,1,2,3}, and it says that the relation R where (m,n) [tex]\in[/tex] R if m + n = 3, m,n [tex]\in[/tex] S.

    it says that this relation isn't transitive, but couldn't you give a vacuous argument for transitivity.

    more specifically there are no x,y,z s.t. (x,y) and (y,z) are elements of the S, therefore the statement
    if (x,y) and (y,z) are in S then (x,z) is in S should be true, right?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 21, 2008 #2
    (0,3) and (3,0) are both in R, but (0,0) is not.
  4. Jan 21, 2008 #3
    thanks, i don't know how i missed that. i must have had myself fooled that the 3rd number had to be unique from the first, when clearly it doesn't.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - sufficient relation transitive Date
B Relative Motion concept Mar 9, 2018
B Functions and Relations Jan 25, 2018
I Distinguishing things by relations Oct 5, 2017
I Relation of the empty set to vacuous truth? Sep 7, 2017
How do we know axioms are sufficient? Aug 15, 2013