Transitivity for set of 2 elements

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter autodidude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of transitivity in the context of a set containing two elements, specifically examining whether the relation defined by "less than" between these elements adheres to the transitivity axiom.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether transitivity can be applied to a set of two elements, suggesting that at least three elements might be necessary for the axiom to hold.
  • Another participant asserts that the transitivity in this case is vacuously true.
  • A subsequent post seeks clarification on the term "vacuous" and expresses a desire for further elaboration.
  • A later reply explains that "vacuously true" means that the implication holds because the premise is never satisfied in this scenario, thus leading to the conclusion about transitivity being vacuously true.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of additional elements for transitivity, with one suggesting that three elements are needed while another argues that the transitivity is vacuously true in this case. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the implications of transitivity for a two-element set.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the definitions of transitivity and the implications of having a limited number of elements in the set, as well as the specific conditions under which the transitivity axiom is evaluated.

autodidude
Messages
332
Reaction score
0
If we have a set of two elements, say S={0. 1} and we defined 0 to be less than 1, would this obey the transitivity axiom? (If a<b and b<c then a<c? )

To me, it seems looks like you need at least 3 elements but I'm not entirely sure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would say that it is vacuously true.
 
Thanks...could you please elaborate a bit on what 'vacuous' means in this context?

EDIT: Nevermind, I wiki'd it and think I understand it. Of course, any additional thoughts would be appreciated.
 
For others who might be wondering, the implication "if P then Q" is true whenever P is false, whether Q is true or not. That is what is meant by "vacuously true". In this particular problem, because there are only two elements, "a< b and b< c" is never true, therefore the conclusion, that "<" for this set is transitive, is "vacuously true".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K