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

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Partial Relations
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum 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, specifically Chapter 2. The main focus is on Exercise 1(a), which requires proving that every irreflexive, transitive binary relation R is asymmetric. A user named Peter presents a proof attempt, demonstrating that if both <a,b> and <b,a> are in R, it leads to a contradiction with the irreflexivity of R. This proof approach is validated through logical reasoning, confirming the relationship between irreflexivity, transitivity, and asymmetry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of binary relations and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concepts of irreflexivity and transitivity
  • Knowledge of asymmetry in mathematical relations
  • Basic proof techniques in set theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions of partial order relations in "Discovering Modern Set Theory. I The Basics"
  • Explore the implications of irreflexivity, transitivity, and asymmetry in relation theory
  • Practice constructing proofs for various properties of binary relations
  • Review additional exercises in Chapter 2 to reinforce understanding of partial orders
USEFUL FOR

Students of set theory, mathematicians interested in order relations, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the properties of binary relations.

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
 

Similar threads

MHB What Defines a Nonreflexive Relation in Set Theory?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
MHB Antisymmetry & Partial Orderings - H&J Ch.2 Section 5 | Peter's Help
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
MHB Indexed Families of Sets .... Just and Weese .... Exercise 8 ....
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
MHB Properties of the Ordinals ....
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Well Orders and Total Orders .... Searcoid Definition 1.3.10 ....
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Can you explain how the law of logic was used to reach this conclusion?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
MHB Partial Order - Reconciling Definitions by Garling and Goldrei ....
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Partial Order - Reconciling Definitions by Garling and Goldrei
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Understanding H&J's Section 3 on Invertible & One-to-One Functions: Q&A
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB The Recursion Theorem .... Searcoid, Theroem 1.3.24 .... ....
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K