Re: Reflexive And Symmetric

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**Hartlw** The possible relations on {1.2.3} are:

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3)}

{(1,2), (2,3), (1,3)}

{(2,1) (3,2), (3,1)}

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (1,2), (2,3), (1,3)}

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (2,1), (3,2), (3,1)}

You missed a whole lot of the relations on .

There are possible relations.

Any subset of .

As I said you don't know what a relation is.

Re: Reflexive And Symmetric

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**Plato** You missed a whole lot of the relations on

.

There are

possible relations.

Any subset of

.

As I said you don't know what a relation is.

Not if 1,2,3 are integers, or you accept meaningless definitions which are really not relations. Frankly, I wavered on acceptable subsets. I don't believe they apply for the integers, depending on the definition of "relation," for example {(1,1), (1,2)}, but that's a topic for another discussion. In any event, your post 2 set is not a possible relation for the integers.

Re: Reflexive And Symmetric

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**Hartlw** Not if 1,2,3 are integers, or you accept meaningless definitions which are really not relations. Frankly, I wavered on acceptable subsets. I don't believe they apply for the integers, depending on the definition of "relation," for example {(1,1), (1,2)}, but that's a topic for another discussion. In any event, your post 2 set is not a possible relation for the integers.

If then it is a relation in the integers.