Results 1 to 9 of 9

Math Help - Transitive relation help

  1. #1
    Senior Member Danneedshelp's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    303

    Transitive relation help

    How do I go about proving the relation \rho defined such that u\rho\\v \Leftrightarrow g(u) and g(v) have the same sign ( u,v\in{\mathbb{R}}) is transitive?

    proof: Suppose u\rho\\w and w\rho\\v, then g(u), g(w), and g(v) have the same sign. Without loss of generality, suppose g(u)\leq g(w) \leq\\g(v) are all positive. Then...

    Am I on the right track? Can I assume that the outputs are ordered as I did?

    Thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Danneedshelp View Post
    How do I go about proving the relation \rho defined such that u\rho\\v \Leftrightarrow g(u) and g(v) have the same sign ( u,v\in{\mathbb{R}}) is transitive?

    proof: Suppose u\rho\\w and w\rho\\v, then g(u), g(w), and g(v) have the same sign. Without loss of generality, suppose g(u)\leq g(w) \leq\\g(v) are all positive. Then...

    Am I on the right track? Can I assume that the outputs are ordered as I did?

    Thanks
    I don't understand what the diffculty is. Suppose that x\sim y\Longleftrightarrow \text{sgn}\text{ }g(x)=\text{sgn }g(y). This clearly implies though that since \text{sgn} is never zero that the above is the same as \frac{\text{sgn }g(x)}{\text{sgn }g(y)}=1. So assume then that y\sim z\implies \frac{\text{sgn }g(y)}{\text{sgn }g(z)}=\frac{\text{sgn }g(z)}{\text{sgn }g(y)}=1. Equate the two and solve. Am I misinterpreting the question?

    Remark This actually isn't true in general, only if g(x)\ne0\quad \forall x\in\mathbb{R}, otherwise the signum function is undefined.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Senior Member Danneedshelp's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Drexel28 View Post
    I don't understand what the diffculty is. Suppose that x\sim y\Longleftrightarrow \text{sgn}\text{ }g(x)=\text{sgn }g(y). This clearly implies though that since \text{sgn} is never zero that the above is the same as \frac{\text{sgn }g(x)}{\text{sgn }g(y)}=1. So assume then that y\sim z\implies \frac{\text{sgn }g(y)}{\text{sgn }g(z)}=\frac{\text{sgn }g(z)}{\text{sgn }g(y)}=1. Equate the two and solve. Am I misinterpreting the question?

    Remark This actually isn't true in general, only if g(x)\ne0\quad \forall x\in\mathbb{R}, otherwise the signum function is undefined.
    Yes, I am sorry for not being more clear about the function g(x). I have defined g(x) such that g(x)=f(x)-L where g(x) never takes on the value zero, because for any x in my domian, f(x) does not equal L.

    I have only seen the signum function once in a homework problem. As I understand it, the sgn function allows us just deal with the sign of a value?

    Thanks for your help
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Danneedshelp View Post
    Yes, I am sorry for not being more clear about the function g(x). I have defined g(x) such that g(x)=f(x)-L where g(x) never takes on the value zero, because for any x in my domian, f(x) does not equal L.

    I have only seen the signum function once in a homework problem. As I understand it, the sgn function allows us just deal with the sign of a value?

    Thanks for your help
    I am not entirely sure if what you're saying invalidates what I have done. Does it? If so, let me know. And yes if we define f:\mathbb{R}^*\mapsto\{-1,1\} with x\mapsto\begin{cases} -1 & \mbox{if}\quad x<0 \\ 1 & \mbox{if}\quad x>0\end{cases} then we are really describing the signum function.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,527
    Thanks
    773
    In my opinion, it does not matter whether g or sgn may return 0. Almost any relation R of the form "x and y have the same something" is transitive (as well as reflexive and symmetric). More precisely, if something(x) is a function and the relation "same" is itself transitive, then so is R.

    In this case, if g(x) and g(y) have the same sign, and g(y) and g(z) have the same sign, then it is clear that all three have the same sign.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    In my opinion, it does not matter whether g or sgn may return 0. Almost any relation R of the form "x and y have the same something" is transitive (as well as reflexive and symmetric). More precisely, if something(x) is a function and the relation "same" is itself transitive, then so is R.

    In this case, if g(x) and g(y) have the same sign, and g(y) and g(z) have the same sign, then it is clear that all three have the same sign.
    What is the sign of \sin(0)=-\sin(0)?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,527
    Thanks
    773
    What is the sign of ?
    Well, this depends on the definition of the sgn function. I would say \text{sgn}(0) should be 0, so \text{sgn}(\sin(0))=\text{sgn}(-\sin(0))=0.

    However, I don't see how this changes anything. If, for some function g and some transitive relation \equiv, the relation R(x,y) is defined as g(x)\equiv g(y), then R is transitive. If we have some unusual case, e.g., when g(x) is not defined, then we cannot say R(x,y) for any y. If g(x) and g(y) are defined but g(x)\equiv g(y) is not, then again x and y are not related, so the premise of the transitivity property is false. What is important is for g to be a function, i.e., return exactly one value for each x.

    Do you have any counterexample in mind?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    Well, this depends on the definition of the sgn function. I would say \text{sgn}(0) should be 0, so \text{sgn}(\sin(0))=\text{sgn}(-\sin(0))=0.

    However, I don't see how this changes anything. If, for some function g and some transitive relation \equiv, the relation R(x,y) is defined as g(x)\equiv g(y), then R is transitive. If we have some unusual case, e.g., when g(x) is not defined, then we cannot say R(x,y) for any y. If g(x) and g(y) are defined but g(x)\equiv g(y) is not, then again x and y are not related, so the premise of the transitivity property is false. What is important is for g to be a function, i.e., return exactly one value for each x.

    Do you have any counterexample in mind?
    No, I just merely had in mind a different definition of sign than you. Clearly though, according to Mathworld.com, yours is the correct. If the sign of zero was undefined then clearly this relation would not be well defined. For what we are saying is not when g(x) is undefined but when it's sign is indeterminable.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,607
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    I have tried to stay away from commentating on this thread.
    However, I think any misunderstandings have resulted from a badly worded question.
    Testing companies pay good money to have possible test questions reviewed.
    The original post would have failed that process.
    The phrase “same sign” would have sent up red flags.
    It is so easy to say g(u)~\&~g(v) are either both negative or both non-negative.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Transitive Relation
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 13th 2011, 01:40 PM
  2. Determine whether the following relation is transitive
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 4th 2010, 10:25 AM
  3. [SOLVED] Transitive relation help please?
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 23rd 2010, 12:39 AM
  4. Transitive closure relation.
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 8th 2009, 03:38 AM
  5. Transitive relation
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 19th 2009, 03:02 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum