What are naturally occuring examples of relations that satisfy two of the following properties, but not the third: symmetric, reflexive, and transitive.

Printable View

- October 22nd 2008, 11:23 AMterr13Reflexive, Transitive, Symmetric
What are naturally occuring examples of relations that satisfy two of the following properties, but not the third: symmetric, reflexive, and transitive.

- October 22nd 2008, 12:45 PMSoroban
Hello, terr13!

So far, I have__two__of the examples . . .

Quote:

What are naturally occuring examples of relations that satisfy two of the

following properties, but not the third: Reflexive, Symmetric, and Transitive?

Let = "is a brother of"

. . (The first is male, and both parties are children of the same parents.)

Reflexive: .

. .

Symmetric: .

. .

Not necessarily true . . .

Transitive: .

. .

The relationship is reflective and transitive, but not symmetric.

Let = "knows" (is acquainted with).

Reflexive: .

. . .True.

Symmetric: .

. . .True

Transitive: .

. . .not necessarily true

The relationship is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive.

- October 22nd 2008, 03:36 PMterr13
Thanks for the fast reply, but the one I still have the most trouble with is finding one that is not reflexive. For not symmetric, I was thinking of using . The problem I have with non reflexive is if we say the relation is !, and we have x!y and y!x, if x!y, and y!z, then x!z. But if we look at those two, we can use the symmetric relation in the transitive one and say if x!y, and y!x, then x!x, which proves reflexiveness.

- May 20th 2009, 02:12 PMSixWingedSeraphIs the brother of is not reflexive
Let = "is a brother of"

. . (The first is male, and both parties are children of the same parents.)

Reflexive: .

. .

This is not standard English usage. If a mother and father have three children, all male, and you ask one of them "How many brothers do you have?", he will answer "Two" not "Three". - May 20th 2009, 02:19 PMSixWingedSeraphSymmetric and transitive but not reflexive
The last sentence is fallacious. Maybe there is an x for which x!y is false for all y. Example: the usual definition of "divides" on all integers requires that m|n if there is a unique integer q for which n = qm. The result is that m|m for every nonzero integer, but 0 does not divide 0, so the relation is not reflexive.

An easier way to come up with counterexamples is to look at small finite relations. For this problem, try the relation R on {1,2} defined by 2R2 (and nothing else). - May 20th 2009, 02:24 PMSixWingedSeraphMore about symmetric and transitive but not reflexive
This sort of relation is called a "partial equivalence relation" and is a big deal in theoretical computer science. You can start learning about it from Wikipedia here:

Partial equivalence relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia