Results 1 to 10 of 10

Math Help - Determine is relation is transitive

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    92

    Determine is relation is transitive

    Problem:

    nRm in \mathbb{Z} if nm > 0. Determine if this is an equivalence relation.

    ------------

    I know that an equivalence relationship requires it to be reflexive, symmetric and transitive. I know how to do reflexive and symmetric, but I'm having some trouble with transitive. I think I may have gotten it, or maybe I'm close.

    Here's my attempt:

    First introduced p as a third variable for the transitive test. I said that if nRp and pRm were true, then np>0 and mp>0.
    (nRp \land pRm) \to (np>0 \land pm>0)
    Since np>0 as proven in the first step by assuming nRp, and likewise for mp, n, p and m are all not zero.
    (np>0) \to (n \neq 0 \land p \neq 0)
    (mp>0) \to (m \neq 0 \land p \neq 0)
    And therefore nRp and pRm are both true. Referring to the definition of a transitive relation that says (xRy \land yRz) \to (xRz), I say that this IS a transitive relation because both of the required relations in the implication of the definition (replacing x with n, y with p and z with m) are true, and therefore xRz is true, or in my case, nRm, which it what I was out to prove.

    But now that I look at it more closely... what if p was negative? Then this wouldn't be transitive. I think I'm assuming something I'm not supposed to assume.

    I was looking at an example in my book, and they are proving that it's not transitive if it's simply nm >= 0. They said that if aRb and bRc, then ab>=0 and bc>=0. Thus acb^2 >= 0. What allowed them to combine those two expressions to get that b^2? If I know that, I think I can just say that (in my problem) p^2 must be > 0 because all numbers squared are positive except for zero, but I've already proved that it's not zero.

    A push in the right direction would be perfect. Please don't just spit out the answer

    Thanks.
    Last edited by tangibleLime; September 12th 2011 at 02:27 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,614
    Thanks
    1581
    Awards
    1

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    Quote Originally Posted by tangibleLime View Post
    Problem:
    nRm in \mathbb{Z} if nm > 0. Determine if this is an equivalence relation.
    Is this true 0R0~?
    If no then why do any more?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Super Member TheChaz's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    From
    Northwest Arkansas
    Posts
    600
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Is this true 0R0~?
    If no then why do any more?
    How about Z\{0}?
    It might be a useful exercise...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,614
    Thanks
    1581
    Awards
    1

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    Quote Originally Posted by TheChaz View Post
    How about Z\{0}?
    It might be a useful exercise...
    But that is not what was posted.
    I think that it is important to deal only what was actually posted.
    Otherwise, this forum could dissolve into wild guessing.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Super Member TheChaz's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    From
    Northwest Arkansas
    Posts
    600
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    But that is not what was posted.
    I think that it is important to deal only what was actually posted.
    Otherwise, this forum could dissolve into wild guessing.
    ...or into speculation about the future of the forum

    I think the exercise would be useful.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    92

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    Oooh, I think I was assuming that we were supposed to assume that nm > 0 was true. Now I see that it's not necessarily true... and if it's false, then something like 0R0 can arise... correct?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Super Member TheChaz's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    From
    Northwest Arkansas
    Posts
    600
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    There is a time to make such an assumption.

    Usually, we prove that - FOR ALL elements "x" in the set - xRx.
    This is not true, since 0R0 <=> (0*0 > 0)

    Since reflexivity fails, there is no need to continue.

    However, suppose that we are dealing with the integers (or reals) except (set difference) 0.

    Then it is indeed true that for all nonzero integers "x", xRx since x*x > 0

    For symmetry, we need to prove that
    (xRy) => (yRx)
    And HERE we DO assume the hypothesis (that x is related to y) and show that the conclusion (yRx) is true
    Assume xRy <=> x*y > 0
    Well, since integers commute in multiplication, this is equivalent to (y*x > 0) <=> yRx as desired.

    For transitive, we would assume that xRy AND that yRz
    xy > 0 AND yz > 0
    We multiply these together to get
    xy*yz > 0
    x(y^2)z > 0
    Since y^2 is positive, so is xz. QED
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    774

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    Quote Originally Posted by tangibleLime View Post
    Oooh, I think I was assuming that we were supposed to assume that nm > 0 was true.
    Without saying what n and m are, this statement is meaningless. It is true for some n, m and false for others. Usually when people say that some statement P(n, m) is true without specifying n and m, they mean "For all n and m it is the case that P(n, m) is true." But if you mean this, then the relation R is total, i.e., nRm holds for all n and m. Then it is automatically reflexive, symmetric and transitive (e.g., transitivity holds just because the conclusion is true regardless of the premise).

    Moral: always define the objects you use (like n and m above).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,614
    Thanks
    1581
    Awards
    1

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    Without saying what n and m are, this statement is meaningless.
    Moral: always define the objects you use (like n and m above)
    Actually it was defined in the OP.
    Quote Originally Posted by tangibleLime View Post
    Problem:
    nRm in \color{blue}\mathbb{Z} if nm > 0. Determine if this is an equivalence relation.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    774

    Re: Determine is relation is transitive

    I am still not sure which n and m in Z the OP had in mind when he/she said "I was assuming that we were supposed to assume that nm > 0." Either "nm > 0" is not a proposition and cannot be assumed, or it stands for "for all n and m, nm > 0," i.e., "for all n and m, nRm." In the latter case, as I said, the problem is trivial since a total relation is an equivalence relation.
    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 relation help
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 3rd 2009, 03:40 PM
  5. Transitive relation
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 19th 2009, 03:02 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum