Transitive Relation over Set - Feedbacks on proofwriting skills

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that a binary relation R, defined by the falsity of a negatively transitive relation P, is itself transitive. The proof begins by assuming arbitrary elements x, y, and z such that xRy and yRz, leading to the conclusion that both yPx and zPy are false. Utilizing the property of negative transitivity of P, it follows that zPx must also be false, confirming that xRz holds true. Participants provide feedback on the proof's clarity and correctness, noting a minor typographical error in the definition of negative transitivity. Overall, the proof is deemed sound after the correction.
Kolmin
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Assume a relation P that is negatively transitive on a set X that is not empty.
Define the binary relation R on X by xRy iff y P x is false.

Prove that R is transitive.

Homework Equations



Negative Transitivity: xPz \rightarrow xPy \vee yPz

Like in the previous thread (Complete Relation), I think I have a proof, but I am really looking forward to any feedback on the style of this proof. I tried to incorporate the stylistic feedbacks of Michael Redei and pasmith who kindly gave me feedbacks on the previous attempt.

The Attempt at a Solution



Proof:
Let x, y and z be arbitrary and assume xRy and yRz. By definition of R it follows that yPx and zPy are both false. Since P is negatively transitive, this implies that zPx is false. Thus, again by definition of R, the falsity of zPx implies xRz, which proves that the relation R is transitive.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kolmin said:
Negative Transitivity: xPy \rightarrow xPy \vee yPz
I think you mean xPy → xPz V zPy, or somesuch.
 
haruspex said:
I think you mean xPy → xPz V zPy, or somesuch.

I hate typos... :smile:

I edited the previous post: it is xPz \rightarrow xPy \vee yPz
 
With that correction, your proof looks fine.
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...

Similar threads

Back
Top