Results 1 to 7 of 7

Math Help - Relations prove

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4

    Relations prove

    Yeah! THis forum rocks my socks
    !!

    Thank you in advance!
    Last edited by Cronus; April 25th 2008 at 06:58 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,607
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cronus View Post
    2)Prove:
    Every maximal chain in a finite poset contains a minimal element of the poset.
    A chain is totally ordered subset. Because of the finite character every chain in a finite poset has a maximal term.
    If that term is not maximal in the whole poset then the chain is not maximal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cronus View Post
    1)Prove:
    We necessarily get an equivalence relation when we form the transitive closure of the symmetric closure of the reflexive closure of a relation.
    What is the definition of each of: transitive closure, symmetric closure and reflexive closure of a relation?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    What is the definition of each of: transitive closure, symmetric closure and reflexive closure of a relation?
    I don't really have definitions... What I know is that if a relation R on a set S fails to have a certain property, you may be able to extend R to a relation R* on S that does have that property.

    So for example for S = {0,1,2,3} and R={<0,1>,<0,2>,<1,1>,<1,3>,<2,2>,<3,0>} we know that R is not reflexive, symmetric or transitive. However, if we add the ordered pairs <0,0> and <3,3>, these pairs along with the original ones will give me the closure of R with respect to reflexivity.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,607
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Well I would assume that there must be some minimal additions to accomplish closure.
    For example, just by uniting the diagonal with any relation makes it reflexive.

    Also, I find this to be a trivial question for this reason.
    Any relation that is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive is by definition an equivalence relation.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4
    Yeah, but I think the order in which you form your closures matters... I.E. If the transitive closure adds something that messes up with the symmetric qualities, then we're screwed!
    Last edited by Cronus; April 25th 2008 at 07:01 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4

    So got b... still working on a... any ideas?

    This is awesome!
    Last edited by Cronus; April 25th 2008 at 07:01 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Cronus View Post
    Yeah! THis forum rocks my socks
    !!

    Thank you in advance!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cronus View Post
    This is awesome!
    please do not delete your questions
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Relations and Functions - Inverse Relations Question
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 13th 2011, 12:20 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 19th 2011, 01:09 PM
  3. relations help (4)
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 18th 2010, 07:58 AM
  4. relations help (3)
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 18th 2010, 04:49 AM
  5. Prove transitive relations
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 21st 2010, 01:35 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum