Relation on X: Symmetry, Reflexivity & Transitivity

  • Thread starter Thread starter sam0617
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Symmetry
sam0617
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
Let X = { a, b, c }

X x X = { (a,a), (b,b), (c,c) }
{ (a,b), (b,a), (a,c), (c,a) }
{ (b,c), (c,b) }

1. Symmetric but not reflexive or transitive:
R = { (a,b), (b,a), (a,a), (b,c), (c,b) }
How come this is right? Isn't aRb, bRa imply aRa? isn't that transitive? is it because (b,c,), (c,b) is there but not (b,b) the reason why R is not transitive?

I ask because the 2nd question is confusing. Here it is:
2. Symmetric and transitive but not reflexive:
R= { (a,a), (a,b), (b,a), (b,b) }
See how aRb, bRa implies aRa so therefore it's transitive? How come it doesn't hold for the 1st question??

Thank you for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Transitive means that for ALL x,y,z:

xRy~\text{and}~yRz~\Rightarrow~xRz

It must holds for ALL.

For the first one, it isn't transitive since if you take x=z=a and y=x, then you see that the above is not satisfied. So it doesn't hold for ALL x,y,z. It does hold for some x,y,z. But it does hold for some. But some isn't enough to imply transitivity.

In (2), it does hold for ALL, so it is transitive.
 


micromass said:
Transitive means that for ALL x,y,z:

xRy~\text{and}~yRz~\Rightarrow~xRz

It must holds for ALL.

For the first one, it isn't transitive since if you take x=z=a and y=x, then you see that the above is not satisfied. So it doesn't hold for ALL x,y,z. It does hold for some x,y,z. But it does hold for some. But some isn't enough to imply transitivity.

In (2), it does hold for ALL, so it is transitive.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what the x=z=a and y=x then it wouldn't satisfy above.
Could you explain more?

EDIT: Then to make question 1 transitive, all I would have to add is (b,b) ?
 


Sorry, typo. I meant that if x=z=b and y=c, then it isn't true that bRc and cRb and bRb.

Adding (b,b) would not make it transtive.

Indeed, we also don't have

aRb and bRc => aRc

since (a,c) is not in the relation.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...
Back
Top