Transitive Relation over Set - Feedbacks on proofwriting skills

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of a binary relation R defined on a set X, where R is shown to be transitive based on the negative transitivity of another relation P. Participants are providing feedback on the proof-writing skills of the original poster.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to prove the transitivity of relation R by leveraging the definition of negative transitivity of relation P. Some participants question the clarity of the negative transitivity definition, suggesting a possible correction in the logical expression.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on the proof's structure and clarity. Some guidance has been offered regarding the correction of a typo in the definition of negative transitivity, which has been acknowledged by the original poster.

Contextual Notes

Participants are focused on the stylistic aspects of proof-writing, and there is an emphasis on incorporating previous feedback into the current proof attempt.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
28K