1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min 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!

Symmetric/Antisymmetric Relations, Set Theory Problem

  1. Apr 3, 2007 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Prove that if R is a symmetric relation on A, and Dom(R) = A, then R = the identity relation.

    2. The attempt at a solution
    My problem is... I don't believe the claim. At all. If A = {1, 2, 3} and R = {(1, 2), (2, 1), (3, 1), (1, 3)}, that satisfies the antecedent, and isn't the identity relation. Am I missing something? I can't exactly prove something I don't believe. Thanks for any help or explanations you can provide.

    p.s. This book has been known to have typos eeeeeverywhere. Suggestions as to what they really meant (antisymmetric? that wouldn't even work I don't think) are appreciated as well.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    What exactly do you mean by Dom(R)=A?
  4. Apr 3, 2007 #3
    Domain of R is the entire set A.
  5. Apr 3, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I don't know what they could mean. Take any relation that satisfies the premise (such as yours, or the identity relation) and add pairs of relations, keeping it symmetric, and it still satisfies the premise. It seems like the Dom(R) part is crucial (since the symmetric part is pretty straightforward), so are you sure you've interpreted this right? You probably have, I'm just not familiar with that notation, and I don't know what else to suggest.
  6. Apr 3, 2007 #5
    I've decided that it'd be easier to prove that if R is symmetric and antisymmetric R = identity relation (it's the only thing I can think of). That should hold true shouldn't it?
  7. Apr 3, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yea, and the domain still must be all of A.
  8. Apr 4, 2007 #7

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Gah, whoever uses subsets to define relations should be taken outside and have their maths qualifications thoroughly slapped.

    Any equivalence relation is symmetric, and has domain A, surely. So the claim can't be true.
    If we have a relation that is reflexive (a~a) but satisfies a does not ~ any other b, then yes, only the identity satisfies that.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Symmetric/Antisymmetric Relations, Set Theory Problem
  1. 2 set theory problems (Replies: 3)