Satisfying S∘S=S: What Are The Conditions?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lemonthree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Composition Relation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conditions under which the composition of a relation S with itself, denoted as S∘S, equals S. The participants conclude that for S∘S = S to hold, S must be transitive. Reflexivity and symmetry alone do not guarantee this equality, as demonstrated through counterexamples. The final consensus identifies that only transitivity is necessary for the condition to be satisfied.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relations
  • Familiarity with relation composition in set theory
  • Basic knowledge of set notation and elements
  • Ability to analyze and construct examples of relations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of transitive relations in depth
  • Learn about relation composition and its implications in set theory
  • Explore counterexamples to understand the limitations of reflexivity and symmetry
  • Investigate the role of diagrams in visualizing relations and their properties
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students studying discrete mathematics or set theory who are interested in understanding the properties of relations and their compositions.

lemonthree
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Which of the following implies that S∘S=S? There are 5 options, select all that are right.

S is reflexive
S is symmetric
S is transitive
S is reflexive and symmetric
S is reflexive and transitive

I assume that S acts on a set A. So let a,b,c be elements of A.
For S to be reflexive, for all a in A, a S a.
For S to be symmetric, for all a,b in A, if a S b, then b S a.
For S to be transitive, for all a,b,c in A, if a S b and b S c, then a S c.

Now I got to compose S with S, and I know that the standard definition of R∘S = the relation of A to C, where (a,c) is an element of A x C such that there exists b in B s.t. (a,b) in R and (b,c) in S.

So I have to adapt this standard definition of R∘S to S∘S? I assume that S∘S is the relation of A to A, where (a,c) is an element of A x A such that there exists b in A s.t. (a,b) in S and (b,c) in S.

Therefore, I think S∘S=S implies S is reflexive, symmetric and transitive?
1. For all a in A, a S a.
2. For all a,b in A, if a S b, then b S a. Likewise, if b S a, then a S b.
3. For all a,b,c in A, if a S b and b S c, then a S c. Likewise, if c S b and b S a, then c S a.

So with that, S should be reflexive and symmetric / reflexive and transitive too? Have I misunderstood any parts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lemonthree said:
Which of the following implies that S∘S=S? There are 5 options, select all that are right.

S is reflexive
S is symmetric
S is transitive
S is reflexive and symmetric
S is reflexive and transitive

I assume that S acts on a set A. So let a,b,c be elements of A.
For S to be reflexive, for all a in A, a S a.
For S to be symmetric, for all a,b in A, if a S b, then b S a.
For S to be transitive, for all a,b,c in A, if a S b and b S c, then a S c.

Now I got to compose S with S, and I know that the standard definition of R∘S = the relation of A to C, where (a,c) is an element of A x C such that there exists b in B s.t. (a,b) in R and (b,c) in S.

So I have to adapt this standard definition of R∘S to S∘S? I assume that S∘S is the relation of A to A, where (a,c) is an element of A x A such that there exists b in A s.t. (a,b) in S and (b,c) in S.

Therefore, I think S∘S=S implies S is reflexive, symmetric and transitive?
But that is not what was asked!
The question was the other way around- which of those are necessary to show that S∘S=S.

1. For all a in A, a S a.
2. For all a,b in A, if a S b, then b S a. Likewise, if b S a, then a S b.
3. For all a,b,c in A, if a S b and b S c, then a S c. Likewise, if c S b and b S a, then c S a.

So with that, S should be reflexive and symmetric / reflexive and transitive too? Have I misunderstood any parts?
 
Oops :(

I don't really know how to compose S by itself though, so let me try one and see whether I am correct?

S∘S: a S a S a = a S a = S
So S is reflexive would imply that S∘S = S?
 
If S, a relation on set X, is reflexive then S contains (a, a) for every a in X. But that does not say anything about other pairs in S.

For example, let S, a relation on X= {a, b, c}, be {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (a, b), (b, c)}. S is reflexive and S∘S= {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (a, b), (b, c), (a, c)} which is NOT S.
 
Thank you so much @Country Boy :D

I finally understood it! I could see it better with a diagram, so that's what I did for testing symmetry and transitivity.

SxS=S.jpg


Just as in the reflexivity case, S∘S is not S. So that means the first 3 options are out. Again, looking at the diagram, once S is reflexive and transitive (or reflexive and symmetric), there will be 9 lines "connecting" the elements together, so S∘S = S for the last 2 options.
 
I selected the 2 options

S is reflexive and symmetric
S is reflexive and transitive

and I'm wrong...I don't understand why o_O
 
Let S on X be {(a,b), (a,c), (a,a), (b,a), (b,b), (c,a), (c,c)}. S is reflexive and symmetric, and S∘S= {(a,a), (a,b), (a,c), (b,b), (b,a), (b,c), (c,c), (c,a), (c,b)}
So S has 7 elements while S∘S has 9 elements, so S is reflexive and symmetric is not true.
 
\( S\circ S=S \) is equivalent to the fact that $S$ is transitive. Both mean that if one can go from $a$ to $c$ using two steps according to $S$, then one can go from $a$ to $c$ using one step.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K