MHB What are the properties of partial order relations according to J&W's book?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Partial Relations
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of partial order relations as outlined in "Discovering Modern Set Theory. I The Basics" by Winfried Just and Martin Weese. A participant is seeking assistance with Exercise 1(a) related to proving that every irreflexive, transitive binary relation is asymmetric. They propose a proof strategy involving contradiction, assuming both \(\langle a,b \rangle\) and \(\langle b,a \rangle\) are in the relation, leading to a contradiction with irreflexivity. Feedback is requested on the validity of this proof approach. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the definitions and properties of relations in set theory.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading the book: "Discovering Modern Set Theory. I The Basics" (AMS) by Winfried Just and Martin Weese.

I am currently focused on Chapter 2 Partial Order Relations ...

I need some help with Exercise 1(a) ... indeed, I have been unable to make a meaningful start on the exercise ... :(

The relevant section from J&W is as follows:View attachment 7542As mentioned above ... I have been unable to make a meaningful start on Exercise 1(a) ... can someone please help me with this exercise ... ... Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter===================================================================================It may be helpful for MHB members to have access to J&W's definitions of the properties of relations ... so I am providing the relevant text ... as follows:
View attachment 7543Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading the book: "Discovering Modern Set Theory. I The Basics" (AMS) by Winfried Just and Martin Weese.

I am currently focused on Chapter 2 Partial Order Relations ...

I need some help with Exercise 1(a) ... indeed, I have been unable to make a meaningful start on the exercise ... :(

The relevant section from J&W is as follows:As mentioned above ... I have been unable to make a meaningful start on Exercise 1(a) ... can someone please help me with this exercise ... ... Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter===================================================================================It may be helpful for MHB members to have access to J&W's definitions of the properties of relations ... so I am providing the relevant text ... as follows:
Hope that helps ...

Peter

I have been reflecting on Example 1(a) of Chapter 2 in Just and Weese (see above)

I have an idea regarding a proof ... but I am most unsure that it is valid ...Now we have to show that every irreflexive, transitive binary relation R is asymmetric ...So ... we have to show that for $$R$$ ... $$\langle a,b \rangle \in R \Longrightarrow \langle b, a \rangle \notin R$$ ...So ... my attempt at a proof is as follows:Assume $$\langle a,b \rangle \in R$$ ...NOW ... ALSO ASSUME that $$\langle b, a \rangle \in R$$ ... and look for a contradiction ...... so ... now we have ...$$\langle a,b \rangle \in R$$ and $$\langle b, a \rangle \in R \Longrightarrow \langle a, a \rangle \in R$$ by transitivity ...But $$R$$ is irreflexive ... so we have a contradiction ...Therefore $$\langle b, a \rangle \notin R$$ ...
Can someone please critique my proof ... pointing out any errors or shortcomings ...
Such help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Back
Top