Transitive closure of a relation

  • Thread starter Thread starter icantadd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    closure Relation
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
5 replies · 4K views
icantadd
Messages
109
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let R be a relation and define the following sequence
[tex]R^0 = R[/tex]
[tex]R^{i+1} = R^i \cup \{(s,u) \vert \exists t, (s,t) \in R^i, (t,u) \in R^i \}[/tex]
And
[tex]R^{+} = \bigcup_{i} R_i[/tex]
Prove that [tex]R^{+}[/tex] is the transitive closure.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


1)
[tex]R = R_0 \subset R^{+}[/tex]

2) show transitive
Assume [tex]xR^{+}y,yR^{+}z[/tex] Then there is a
k, such [tex]\exists u, xR^{k}u, uR^{k}y[/tex], and
l, such [tex]\exists w, yR^{l}w, wR^{l}z[/tex]
Therefore [tex]\exists m \geq k+l, xR^{k+l}z[/tex], because ??
I don't know why I think this is the way to go, and I don't know how to finish this part of the proof. I will continue on. Please suggestions here??

3) show smallest transitive relation (by induction)
Let T be any other transitive relation containing R.
(I) [tex]R^0 = R \subset T[/tex]
(II) Assume [tex]R^n \subset T[/tex] and let [tex]xR{n+1}y[/tex]. Then there is a z, such that
[tex](x,y) \in R^n \cup \{(x,y) \vert (x,z) \in R^n, (z,y) \in R^m \}[/tex]
Now if [tex](x,y) \in R^n[/tex] then we are done. Assume [tex](x,y) \in \{(x,y) \vert (x,z) \in R^n, (z,y) \in R^m \}[/tex]. Then because [tex]R^n \in T[/tex] , then [tex](x,z) \in T, (z,y) \in T[/tex]. Then because T is transitive (x,y) is in T.
?Is my last statement here correct?

Therefore [tex]R^n \subset T[/tex]

Any help on the above two questions would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi icantadd! :smile:
icantadd said:
2) show transitive
Assume [tex]xR^{+}y,yR^{+}z[/tex] Then there is a
k, such [tex]\exists u, xR^{k}u, uR^{k}y[/tex], and
l, such [tex]\exists w, yR^{l}w, wR^{l}z[/tex]

Try it with k = l. :wink:
 
Do you mean max{k,l}?
I got credit for changing my answer to that. Meaning I had the answer right. I seem to have trouble in this area, a lot of times, I know that something is working, but I don't know how to justify it to myself. For example, with this problem I can look at it, and say "yes, that is obvious" and write a proof that is technically right, but then I look back at it and I don't know why. Why does that answer work? Because you are guaranteeing recursively that the relation is transitive one step at a time. So then I realize my question is okay, how do you know you are making the relation transitive one step at a time? And to that I simply answer, "because it is" and that just isn't good enough for me.

How do I correctly state what I am thinking on this problem, what is it that makes this work?
 
icantadd said:
… How do I correctly state what I am thinking on this problem, what is it that makes this work?

mmm … all I can suggest is that, in a problem like this, you start by translating the definition into words before you do anything else …

in this case, stare at the definition until you satisfy yourself that Rn is the "pairs of people with 2n degrees of connection" … that is, Bud know Fred knows … … … Ginger knows Lou (with 2n names)

then you can safely predict what will happen, and translate it back into symbols :smile:
 
Then (somewhat removed from the original question) it is appropriate to say something like,
at R^n for any (a,b) there is a set[tex]\{(a,a_1) (a_1,a_2) , ... , (a_{n-1},b)\}[/tex]whose size is at most n.

Back to the problem:
At any rate, if i take m = max {k,l}, then clearly we have
[tex]xR^{m}y[/tex] and also [tex]yR{m}z[/tex], and therefore in [tex]R^{m+1}[/tex] we will have [tex]xR^{m+1}z[/tex]. I think I am getting it. Thank you!
 
icantadd said:
At any rate, if i take m = max {k,l}, then clearly we have
[tex]xR^{m}y[/tex] and also [tex]yR{m}z[/tex], and therefore in [tex]R^{m+1}[/tex] we will have [tex]xR^{m+1}z[/tex]. I think I am getting it. Thank you!

Yes, that's exactly right! :biggrin: