Transitive Relation over Set - Feedbacks on proofwriting skills

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
Kolmin
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



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

Prove that [itex]R[/itex] is transitive.

Homework Equations



Negative Transitivity: [itex]xPz \rightarrow xPy \vee yPz[/itex]

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

I hate typos... :smile:

I edited the previous post: it is [itex]xPz \rightarrow xPy \vee yPz[/itex]