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.