MHB Testing the Properties of a Relation on Nonnegative Real Triples

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on defining a relation α on nonnegative real triples, where (a1, a2, a3) α (b1, b2, b3) holds if exactly two of the three inequalities a1 > b1, a2 > b2, a3 > b3 are satisfied. It explores the properties of this relation, specifically testing for transitivity and antisymmetry, concluding that antisymmetry cannot hold due to conflicting inequalities. The conversation also examines the existence of a set S of three special triples, demonstrating that such a set can be constructed for some triples but cannot universally apply to all special triples. The participants clarify the conditions under which the relation holds and express the need for adherence to forum rules in future posts. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the mathematical properties and implications of the defined relation on special triples.
flashback
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Let us define a relation a on the set of nonnegative real triples as follows:

(a1, a2, a3) α (b1, b2, b3) if two out of the three following inequalities a1 > b1, a2 > b2, a3 > b3 are satisfied.

a) (3) Test a for Transitivity and Antisymmetry

We call a triple (x, y, z) special if x, y, z are nonnegative and x + y + z = 1.

b) (3) Show that there is a set S of 3 special triples (|S|=3) such that for any given special triple (x, y, z) which is not in S, we can find at least one triple (a, b, c) in S such that (x, y, z) α (a, b, c)

c) (4) Show that there not exists a set S of 3 special triples (|S|=3) such that for any given special triple (x, y, z) (including that in S), we can find at least one triple (a, b, c) in S such that (x, y, z) α (a, b, c)

If anyone could give me some help with this :)
Ty in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
flashback said:
Let us define a relation a on the set of nonnegative real triples as follows:

(a1, a2, a3) α (b1, b2, b3) if two out of the three following inequalities a1 > b1, a2 > b2, a3 > b3 are satisfied.
I assume it means exactly two inequalities hold and not at least two.

flashback said:
a) (3) Test a for Transitivity and Antisymmetry
For transitivity, consider $(2,3,1)$, $(1,2,3)$ and $(3,1,2)$. For antisymmetry, having both $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\alpha(y_1,y_2,y_3)$ and $(y_1,y_2,y_3)\alpha(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ is impossible since for some pair $i,j$ of indices we must have $x_i>y_i$ and $x_j>y_j$, but for another pair $i',j'$ we must have $y_{i'}>x_{i'}$ and $y_{j'}>x_{j'}$. The sets $\{i,j\}$ and $\{i',j'\}$ have a common element, say, $k$, and then $x_k>y_k$ and $y_k>x_k$.

flashback said:
We call a triple (x, y, z) special if x, y, z are nonnegative and x + y + z = 1.

b) (3) Show that there is a set S of 3 special triples (|S|=3) such that for any given special triple (x, y, z) which is not in S, we can find at least one triple (a, b, c) in S such that (x, y, z) α (a, b, c)
Consider triples containing two zeros.

flashback said:
c) (4) Show that there not exists a set S of 3 special triples (|S|=3) such that for any given special triple (x, y, z) (including that in S), we can find at least one triple (a, b, c) in S such that (x, y, z) α (a, b, c)
You can't have $(0,0,1)\alpha(a,b,c)$ if $(a,b,c)$ is special.

For the future, please read http://mathhelpboards.com/rules/, especially rule #11.
 
Oh i am really sorry i did not know there were rules. Be sure that next time i will be more carefull when writing a post, although this was the original text that my Discrete Mathematics teacher gave me as an assignment. Thanks a lot.
Best regards.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
57
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top